Normally you have food for thought. This one blah....got some examples? You say 'only starting to "*do" *fire suppression'. Makes me think you are talking about lesser developed areas. With that assumption do you think the people have the ability to make such informed decisions? Granted American's aren't the top of the knowledge pool in the world but certainly near the top. So how's that residential market coming along? I think we can say people are the last ones capable of their own of risk assessment and acceptance. I close my argument with the civil legal system as evidence many people are not capable of understanding and willing to assume risk.
Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group Burns & McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 [email protected] www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of å... .... Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Drains and deciding what is a minimum level of safety. Yes, NFPA 13 is a minimum standard. Th is is clear to North American designers. What may not be clear is that in other areas where resources (either material or in personnel) are scarcer, NFPA 13 is not a minimum standard but a bar too high and one bridge too far. Conforming with all of NFPA 13 can be too costly (in terms of materials or capable personnel) for many jurisdictions that are only starting to "*do" *fire suppression. One solution is a *lighter *sprinkler design document. NFPA 13 /NZS-4541/BS:EN 12845 /AS 2118 etc. could all be slimmed and trimmed to provide a leaner system that while barely less reliable, certainly would be a life saving proposition for fire protection. There are those on these standards committees who will say "we can not frame a lower standard of fire sprinkler care to people just because they can not afford the full fare in design, install and maintenance." These standard framers would not be lowering the care to subscribers; they would be increasing the care to currently unprotected exposures. Subscribing jurisdictions should determine their own minimum standard. It is their right to adopt the minimum standard that fits their condition. Should this not be a definition within risk assessment: risk acceptance is local and necessarily dynamically so? Simply declare publicly and as accurately as possible--what the risk is that a Standard is putting out there. Let people make more informed choices as to what level of risk they accept. For many 3rd and 2nd world locations, a simpler, effective sprinkler system provides the difference between maintaining bad jobs at factories versus losing parents to tragedies. Some NFPA 13 committee members are uniquely qualified to best cut corners off their momentous document; cuts that would create the most reliable * lighter* design alternative. However, many of these members are financially shackled from making what is obvious to me, a morally superior judgment and activity. As a result, many developing countries are left without means to comply with, what is arguably called, just a minimum standard. Saying "its not my responsibility" is not the best dressed advert for the field of fire safety. Scot Deal Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
