We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it -- and stop there -- lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again, and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one any more. -Mark Twain, author and humorist (1835-1910)
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Rod DiBona <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah I hear you Ron and I certainly look at those types of schools > differently. At the end of the day I believe that not sprinklering these new > schools will be a mistake that will come back and bite somebodys kids > somewhere. Have a great weekend. > > Rod > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman > Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 4:33 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: another fire - this will be interesting > > 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) > _______________________________________________ > 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)
