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)
