I've concluded that houses could be made more affordable and safer by leaving out the electrical system. If sprinklers account for about 1% (my unofficial numbers) and electrical systems account for about 3% then omitting electrical systems will save three times as much money on initial cost, you know, the part that gets amortized over a long loan and where the homebuilders make the most profit. Then there's the safety factor. Everyone knows that fire sprinklers are never the cause of fires whereas 30% of fires are due to faulty wiring or electrical appliances. Eliminating the electrical system will reduce fires by a whopping 30%. Of course people will start lighting fires inside their homes so they can see and be warm and cook but in newer homes they'll be safe not only because newer homes are, according to the NAHB, inherently safer, but they'll also low cost sprinklers to protect the house and the family. In fact with the savings from leaving out the electrics the homeowner will be able to afford a full system instead of a weakly 13D type. And what about older homes? We just turn the power off to them which will obviously save the owners enough money that they'll be able to afford a sprinkler retrofit. And those that start fires in their homes before installing protection will just help the rest of us in turning over the existing old building stock for the newer, safer housing as well as reducing the unemployment roles and the need to provide healthcare to as many as we have now. The new NAHB slogan can even be: Living in the dark saves money.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Terri Leyton <[email protected]> wrote: > >From the NAHB Newsletter, Received today: > > > > NAHB Loses First Vote on Fire Sprinkler Mandate > > Two NAHB proposals that would have removed requirements for fire > sprinkler systems in one- and two-family homes from the 2012 > International Residential Code (IRC) lost the first battle last week > when the Residential Building and Energy Committee voted seven to four > to keep this mandate in the main body of the code. > > The vote took place Oct. 28 during the International Code Council > <http://www.iccsafe.org/Pages/default.aspx> 's Code Development Hearings > in Baltimore. As a result of the committee's decision, at least > two-thirds of voting governmental members, rather than a simple > majority, must approve the proposal to remove the mandates when the > ICC's Final Action Hearings take place next spring. > > NAHB will continue to work on behalf of affordability and technical > effectiveness in addressing this issue, said NAHB Chairman Joe Robson. > > "NAHB believes that making sure every home has working smoke alarms > should be our safety priority, not mandating expensive sprinkler systems > for consumers who overwhelmingly don't want them," Robson said. > > A campaign by fire sprinkler manufacturers and other supporters brought > hundreds of fire fighters and fire service personnel to the Baltimore > Hilton for the sprinkler debate. > > Before the debate began, representatives from the Baltimore City Fire > Department <http://www.ci.baltimore.md.us/government/fire/> asked all > members and observers to leave so it could be reconfigured to > accommodate the crowds expected for the committee's discussions and > voting. > > After an hour, the hearings resumed, with more than 1,700 fire fighters > and their supporters taking seats. > > The debate lasted only half an hour. > > Representatives from the National Fire Protection Association > <http://www.nfpa.org/index.asp?cookie%5Ftest=1> took issue with NAHB's > use of statistics demonstrating that the survivability rate of surviving > a fire where there are working smoke detectors present is 99.45% percent > - although that figure is taken directly from an NFPA study of that > issue. > > After the committee voted, a hand count of all members present, > including the fire fighters, estimated that 40 representatives were in > favor of the NAHB proposal and more than 1,700 against. > > Most of the fire fighters left the meeting just after the vote on the > fire sprinkler proposals and were not present the next morning for the > hearings on the remaining IRC proposals. > > For instance. the International Association of Fire Fighters > <http://www.iaff.org/> (IAFF) had proposed an amendment that would > require that a sticker be placed in new homes to indicate the presence > of roof trusses and fire sprinkler systems. NAHB did not speak in > opposition to that proposal, but no IAFF representative was present for > the vote, which lost with a floor count of 35 to 75. > > For more information, e-mail Calli Schmidt <mailto:[email protected]> > at NAHB, or call her at 800-368-5242 x8132. > > > > > > > > Terri Simmons Leyton > > PROTECTION DESIGN & CONSULTING > > 2851 Camino del Rio South, Suite 400 > > San Diego, CA 92108 > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > Ph: 858-751-2930 - ext. 101 > > Fax: 858-751-2933 > > Cell: 619-871-8450 > > Fire Sprinklers Save Lives, Property and Firefighters! > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.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, WSAFM _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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)
