Rod, I'm gonna be Devil's advocate again. Let's for now just focus on those one story type V elementary schools with several buildings, each with a relatively small footprint. This is common in the West. First I have maybe ten rooms of about 30 kids each. Each room opens to a common hall and to the outside. The kids are supervised and drilled regularly to form up like little soldiers, march out to a prearranged spot that is a safe distance from the building and wait there for instructions from their teacher, the principal or a firefighter. They do this when the fire alarm sounds without fail. The teacher insures the room is cleared and accounts for all the students under his/her care. The rooms occupied by the kids are not particularly high risk fire hazards and even the storerooms and janitor closets with too much storage of combustibles are not too big and so, particularly after considering the number of fatalities vis-a-vis the number of fires in these occupancies (zero versus zero to some) they are not very dangerous. Most schools of this type that I've seen burn down typically occur at night. This makes the problem one of property loss and life safety so we can easily move into non-emotional risk based computation to see if the value to the community is better served by sprinklering every crevice against a likely statistical property loss that exceeds the replacement cost vis-a-vis useful building life expectancy when viewed from a national standpoint. Oh yes, school district XYZ may have suffered four total losses that amortized against the remaining useful life of the buildings lost was in excess of sprinklering those buildings but on a larger scale perhaps the average total loss for the average XYZ size district is more like 0.2. Of course I invented these numbers but I'd suggest that though the numbers are made up and that the ratios probably are far different that the concept is accurate. And of course if you make the schools bigger, with more stories, and talk about high schools where the monkeys are harder to herd then the story changes somewhat. But Scot's point about where does society want to spend dollars, protecting people against perceived threats that are statistically unjustifiable or in education. We know where America stands and where it says it stands. In Italy a horrible insult is to pronounce the target of your anger a "Maleducato" or one who is poorly educated. Even stupid pooh pooh head carries no insult weight in this country. And a nightclub with walls covered in solidified gasoline, populated by the inebriated watching an illegal pyrotechnics display in a darkened room is not the same as a school in session. Should we put ejection seats and lifeboats in our cars because they're a form of transportation just like jet fighters and cruise ships? Enough of my rant. Sprinkler the schools. We can afford it. On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Rod DiBona <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess I am looking at this from a different perspective. Some might have > asked about how many had died in nightclub fires in the not too distant past > but nobody is asking that now. Do we wait until AFTER a travesty to justify > avoiding one in the future or do we simply say we are making a proactive > investment into the "priceless" lives? It is hard to eliminate the lives from > the equation retroactively. If we told the public that "by the numbers of > lives lost" we can statistically show that we could avoid a travesty the size > of 9-11 ( or greater) EACH and EVERY year by adding sprinklers to homes I > think it may be viewed differently. > > Rod DiBona > Rapid Fire > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman > Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 4:30 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: another fire - this will be interesting > > I've been waiting for Ed Vining to chime in on this one 'cause he has > some statistics. But, and mind you I'm not anti-sprinkler as I've been > accused of in the not so distant past, how many children have died in > fires in schools in say the last twenty years? How many schools have > burnt down and what types (we should split out the little one story > type V grammar schools built up of several small buildings from larger > schools and those built of better materials than sticks and straw)? > What's the replacement cost of those schools (pro-rated for projected > life of the building) vis-a-vis sprinklering all of them? What time of > day did the ones that were destroyed burn down? If you take the > "priceless" lives out of the equation how does it pencil? And back to > the first question: How many lives have been lost? And yes I sound > like the NAHB spokesguy. > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Tom Duross <[email protected]> wrote: >> We had a home-rule partition passed in the 80's that required adoption by >> city or town vote, individually. It was a requirement for Boarding Houses >> to be sprinklered. Came after years of accidents (isn't that the way?). At >> the time I was only designing systems but I did a ton of them. Funny thing, >> many Owners felt their tenants would mess with them and set them off. Much >> to the contrary, hardly any did. At first, some accidentally broken heads >> caused discharge but when the cops and fire showed up, there was the tenant >> of the room soaking wet claiming he didn't do nuthin'. Ha ha. Similarly >> with some high-rise residential buildings (under another home-rule), folks >> were intimidated by them and didn't mess with them as much as you'd think. >> I'm pretty convinced from years of these and other settings that folks just >> don't finagle with sprinklers. >> >> Happy New Year Campers, >> Tom >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]]on Behalf Of Todd >> Williams >> Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 5:12 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: another fire - this will be interesting >> >> >> Sounds like NAHB talking points...... >> >> >> >> At 04:16 PM 12/31/2008, you wrote: >>>I agree. >>>I had a recent conversation with my father about the residential IBC >>>requirements. >>>His first concern was: The tenant will cause the sprinkler to activate and >>>flood the house if they are at war with the >>>landlord. Now, we haven't heard of >>>this happening because most of the neighborhoods which have these >> residential >>> requirements are affluent. >>>Persons in apartments are less likely to tamper with sprinklers because >> they >>>are in a compound...but a house? >>>This is a legitimate concern that any landlord will share. A tenant cannot >>>burn down a house because he will go to jail for arson. What about people >>>hanging with clothes hangers from sprinkelrs? >>>We've all got the call from motels >>>and apartments about these going off....but >>>these places have maintenance and >>>alarms and quickly respond to reduce water damage. A house will not and the >>>tenant may not know how to shut off the >>>water...all at the landlord's expense. >>> >>>Forest Wilson >>>Cherokee Fire >>> >>> >>> >>>In a message dated 12/31/2008 3:49:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, >>>[email protected] writes: >>> >>>The following is playing devil's advocate - It's almost easy to justify >> not >>>sprinklering something. It really starts with the goals and assumptions. >>>Start with able bodied people awake and the only goal is survival, >>>sprinklers become a cost and not a strategy that make gains over fire >>>alarms. Now I know the assumptions and goals above are not necessarily >>>realistic. Type of construction also becomes less important with above >>>assumptions and goals especially with one story buildings with a lot of >>>doors. I said less important not unimportant (i.e. The Station Fire, >>>sheetrock changes that outcome all else being the same right?) >>> >>>Remember the probability of any one building having a significant fire is >>>very, very small. That's why we have troubles gaining ground in the >>>industry. People do a cost-risk analysis and don't come up with a >>>justification. Although there really isn't much left to sprinkler so >>>considerable ground has been made over the long haul. >>> >>>Really it comes down to the number of fires has fallen in all occupancies; >>>lives lost about match the reduction of fires. One could argue all fire >>>protection including sprinklers, alarm, fire walls and material science >> has >>>made little difference. It is we have less fire to start with. Credit >> for >>>this could be argued is the lawyers who sued manufactures and >> organizations >>>like UL and CPSC. Yes there is the argument sprinklers and alarms detect >>>fires that would have otherwise grown but are not reported. There is no >>>real way to sort this out. I suspect all factors played a role and anyone >>>of them is not the answer. >>> >>>In early college schooling it was reported every person had first hand >>>experience with a family member having a fire. This was late 1980's and >>>probably data from the early '70's (note I don't know which century). For >>>example a kid remembers an Uncle's house burned or even the apartment down >>>the hall had a fire. Today I don't think that's true. I don't know of a >>>fire anyplace in my living extended family on either my side or my wife's. >>> >>>Every day just about we all see or hear of a car accident. You see repair >>>garages with banged up cars out front as your drive to work, just about >>>everybody has been in one, we are tied up in traffic until we get to the >>>front of the line and see the remains of one and every 10 minutes or so >> the >>>radio in your car gives you a traffic update during rush hour(s). It's >> pure >>>marketing (if black) for protection schemes in cars. We don't see this >> with >>>fire. We're in the fire business did you see one today? I did here of two >>>today (one on this forum and one on the news because the slant was the -10 >>>deg the FF had to work in, the fire was really secondary to the story). >>>Imagine those who aren't in the business. You can't miss the traffic >> but >>>you can sure tune out the news to help the kids get their homework done if >> a >>>fire was even reported. >>> >>>Compound lack of fire with about everyone has a story about a sprinkler >>>system leaking. Yes many are my friend at work..... but the point is they >>>don't say my friend at work had a fire.... It is our success as fire >> safety >>>professionals that make justifying more sprinklers hard. >>> >>>The preceding was playing devil's advocate and are not to be confused with >>>my real professional opinion everything should be sprinklered. >>> >>>Chris Cahill, P.E. >>>Fire Protection Engineer >>>Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. >>> >>>763-658-4483 >>>763-658-4921 fax >>> >>>Email: [email protected] >>> >>>Mail: P.O. Box 69 >>>Waverly, MN 55390 >>> >>>Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW >>>Waverly, MN 55390 >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: [email protected] >>>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of å... .... >>>Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 12:27 PM >>>To: [email protected] >>>Subject: another fire - this will be interesting >>> >>>Interesting story - I have recently had 'discussions' with a >>>consultant who has undertaken a 'fire engineering study' for an >>>education dept in England which concluded that sprinklers were not >>>needed in a new school (despite a presumption issued by the Government >>>Department responsible for schools which states that all new schools >>>should be sprinklered). >>> >>>******************* >>> >>>Does not the demand for sprinkler depend on >>>what the need for the sprinklers are? >>>Most forum members want a fire >>>reduced society, and full employment. But is it really cost effective to >>>require sprinklers in all occupancies? For instance, in Type I and Type >> II >>>schools? It depends on what the need is. >>> >>>Is the need to maintain >>>life safety and egress of occupants in a Type I or II school? If that is >>>the >>>need, then sprinklers need not be part of the plan, probably. >>> >>> >>>Is the need for sprinklers to help justify man-down policies at fire >>>departments? Touchy, but one that needs to be faced >>>front forward. >>> >>>Is the need for sprinklers to prevent business interruption? >>>An arguably justifiable need. >>> >>>But to just say, they need sprinklers, is selfish of our industry, without >>>us stating what the sprinklers provide. In a few cases, not much, or >>>more importantly, not what is needed. >>> >>>Frankly, I believe if we simply put sprinklers and a slightly >>>more-than-prescribed number of exits in the design, we would >>>not need me, FPE's expertise or their fees on 85% of our building >>>inventory. >>>That is not being greedy or dumb or lazy, that is being good to >>>society and efficient at cutting excess fat out of the job... >>>something every worker should try to do. >>> >>> >>>scot deal >>>excelsior fire engineering >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >>>For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >>> >>>To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >>>(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >>>For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >>> >>>To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >>>(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >>> >>>**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making >>>headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >>>For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >>> >>>To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >>>(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >> Todd G. Williams, PE >> Fire Protection Design/Consulting >> Stonington, Connecticut >> www.fpdc.com >> 860.535.2080 >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > at home.... > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >
-- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
