Sorry it's long. But you never know where or with whom forum posts end up. I once found a post of mine referenced with full citation in a European government (Netherlands?) publication on protecting historical structures.
That's the problem with our cause. Statistically speaking fire is very rare, even rarer is a death or significant injury from something a sprinkler would solve. Newer homes by what ever measure (1 yr, 5 yr) are statically insignificant in numbers. Very new homes are indeed less prone to fire. This is for two reasons. Many causes like malfunctioning equipment are less frequent because they have new things like HVAC, dryers, electrical wiring, etc. And perhaps more significant is fire disproportionately effects those on the lower rungs of the socio-economic scale. This is partly behavioral/educational and partly they live in less safe homes. Those higher on the socio-economic scale are buying the new houses. Finding homes built in the last 5 years to use as an example do exist but there are few. And remember to deduct the multiple fire deaths in one fire. These numbers are sloppy so bear with me. 300,000,000 Americans, 3,000 fire deaths in homes. <5 million homes built in the last 5 years. Something up to 200,000,000 existing homes. Let's use 100,000,000 homes to exclude apartments and other arrangements. So if we started 5 years ago we might have 5% of the homes sprinklered today. Of these 5 million homes how many do you really think had fires considering the statistical factors. It will take 100 years to turn over nearly all the homes. We'll be dead from global warming or regulating carbon by then anyway. Think vs. airbags. Cars only last 8-10 years max. Didn't take long convert most car on the road to airbag equipped. And even then we're only saving <3,000 people. There's a saying in the fire service/marshals if every one gets out it was a success. Perhaps it's time to raise the standard of success? I ask that rhetorically - it is time. The firefighter risk is BS in my opinion. About 100 die a year total and only 20-30 something in the classical firefighting mode the public thinks of. I'm sorry the sudden heart attack death 4 hours after a job the public just doesn't see as a heroic FF death. They see it as an underlying health problem. And not all of them are in single family homes. AND THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO NOT GO IN THE BUILDING WHEN THERE IS NOTHING TO GAIN! It's risk vs. benefit that often lacks. Often times by the time the FD arrives the damage is done and fate is sealed. The only thing we do is show off our fancy expensive toys to those that paid for them. I think the number that die fighting forest fires is similar to those engage in SFH fires. Many of these are in airplanes. True rescues by the fire services are more rare than deaths I think. I often wonder if cops rescued more people than FF. I personally know of more cops that truly changed the life outcome during a fire then the FD. Nothing like crawling in the front door of what appears to be a fire only to have a cop already outback on the deck knock most of it down with a 20lb extinguisher after breaking in the back door. Or smoke in the sky as you leave the station only to find the cops and homeowner used a garden hose and you find not much on arrival. The problem we are trying to solve won't show up in the numbers for years if not decades. This is the uphill battle we face. Think any long term problem. Those that have to pay for it now may not ever see the benefit. Another problem with America - the lack of willingness to sacrifice now for the betterment of the future. I blame this on the Boomers, being Gen-X myself. Just a little fun dig to my Boomer friends. Don't blame me you raised us. I suppose Boomers could blame their parents. Don't get me wrong. I'm am a very strong sprinkler advocate. The IFC change years ago was my code change proposal. Others carried the torch in NFPA and the IRC. This debate of whether to sprinkler or not goes away once a few lawsuits are filed after a loss that blames the homebuilder for not installing sprinklers as a matter of he should have known the risk and it was preventable. This is a valid legal theory. Having the dots connected to a loss one could reasonably say should have been sprinklered, where there was no fault on the owner and a clean line from homeowner to builder is needed. Insurance could do it under subrogation but they will tell you fire is not even near the top losses they worry about. Think weather as the big one. To beat our enemy we must understand our enemy, his motivations however illogical and his tactics. We do need examples but they will be tough to come by. Ours is a noble cause that benefits will only be fully reveled in time. But clearly I never really thought about it and don't have much to say about the matter. 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 Rod DiBona Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:26 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Update from Michigan That's right Ron. And that will be powerful. It is sad but the truth is we have to put "REAL" faces on this issue or everyone will look at it in the abstract. Rod DiBona -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 8:20 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Update from Michigan Michael, One more thing. When the next person dies in a fire you need to be naming names of those who voted against this, the names of the elected officials that appointed them and then you need to confront current elected officials in a public forum on their opinion of the Michigan Construction Code Review Committee's decision. On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Michael O'Brian<[email protected]> wrote: > It was not a good day for us in Michigan yesterday. > > The Habitat for Humanity proposal to remove the residential fire sprinkler > requirement from the code was accepted 10 to 2 by the Michigan Construction > Code Review Committee (2 nay votes to deny the proposal were labor and fire > service). > > The room (large 250 plus?) was filled to overflowing with the fire service > or advocates of sprinklers being out numbered about ten to one by the > homebuilders. The Michigan fire service lead by the Inspectors association > came out in very good numbers and put up a well organized fight as compared > to the other states The hearing began at 9:30 and concluded at 2:00 PM. > > The key arguments put forward by the homebuilders were as follows. > > > - Sprinklers should be an option not mandatory, > - The cost of installation and other associated cost are too high. > - The necessity for mandatory installation is not justified given the > number of fire deaths. > > The home builders and Habitat representatives pounded away at those three > points. A couple of other side issues we need to be aware of which I think > could get legs in other states are as follows. The fact that a number of > states have now removed the requirement during their code adoption process > was mentioned a couple of times. That momentum is going to be troubling for > us in the future. The homebuilders suggested on a number of occasion that > the sprinkler requirement is being pushed by a greedy group of sprinkler > manufacturers , suppliers and contractors. In other words the motivation is > not life safety as much as it is profit driven. > > Aside from the above points there were the normal myths and misconceptions > expressed by those who obviously have not taken the time to look into the > technology, the requirements of 13D or the issue as a whole. These were > very frustrating and repeated by most in the proponent of the code change. > I was fascinated that they utilized 2 buses of advocates and they were well > beyond home builders. They were just about every interest group including > homebuilders, building officials, private interest, every habitat for > humanity chapter from the state, and other low-income groups. > > The only comment made by the members of the committee came prior to a motion > to adopt. The comment came from a committee member who is a homebuilder and > I understand is also a firefighter. He said that he would be voting to > support the Habitat motion not because he thought the sprinkler requirement > was not appropriate but that the economy and depressed home building market > could not endure further pressure at this time. He stated he would vote in > favor in 2012 if the economy turned around. > > Time for Plan B here in Michigan and we will see what that is. But if you > are interested in serving on some committees to help us on our 2012 push, > let me know > -- > Michael O'Brian > Code Savvy Consultants > O: 313-618-6401 > F: 313-557-0294 > [email protected] > www.codesavvyconsultants.com > www.inspector911.com > _______________________________________________ > 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 Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Bates Technical College Tacoma, WA Member: SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA _______________________________________________ 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
