Some advocates of extreme criteria (no implication Chris) use as a
basis that the standard is just a minimum. They talk as if that means
marginally acceptable. You hit it on the nose by saying it is the
Minimum amount to get a Reasonable level of protection. The point is
not whether it qualifies for MY definition of reasonable but just the
fact that it is not attempting to achieve zero risk. I suspect that
if more in the AHJ community read section 1.2 (since their creed is to
strive for no loss) before attempting to interpret how to apply a
section of the standard, we'd have far fewer conflicts.
Roland
On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Chris Cahill wrote:
But the wishy-washy words are "minimum" and "reasonable". Well my
minimum and reasonable might be
different from yours. I'd also say those word are conflicting after
we
agree they are subjective. Minimum is the lowest. I interpret
reasonable to
be more than minimum but not the maximum. Works a little better if
you read
it as minimum to achieve reasonable. Then we just have the
subjectivity of
what is reasonable. And I am hard pressed to think of an example in
13 that
defines performance in their job as it relates to doing their job.
_______________________________________________
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)
