I agree, I now reside in one of those 3rd world countries and something is better than nothing. How many reports I see about fires and deaths and no one bats an eye.
Instead they institute you have to buy fire extinguishers. Ok but from the governmental "authorized representative", that ups the cost ate east twice as much if not 3 times. It easier to pay the "fine" then buy them. Of course this goes in their pockets. But I digress into another issue lol. I'm trying to figure out a way to bring a 13R/D system as being standard. Even in places where it would directly violate code but again something is better than nothing. There's other lighter standards, i.e. Australian code and French code. But many times these only require hose stations and don't really provide any protection. It's perfect, likes let a single 100lb guy try to handle a 2.5"(65) hose. That probably only be used after the fire is out of control. And a fire dept that requires a fee(bribe) before they'll even come out. The only way I see is to show the officials they can make money requiring these lower/lighter systems. Money makes the world to round in these places not life safety, public safety or even basic precautions. I'll try to shut up now lol this is one of my sticking points since I've been over here. A lack of fire protection and the seemingly indifference to life. Aaron M. Peck SET NICET IV (Fire) +1 (202) 407-9079 Skype +855 (78) 700-407 Cellphone Sent from my iPhone On Jun 20, 2013, at 16:26, Trevor Spain <[email protected]> wrote: > 13D and 13R systems are not designed to control a fire but strictly for life > safety through extended egress time. I view this as useful an would think the > goal of 3rd world systems would initially be life safety not property > protection. Why couldn't a light commercial life safety standard be developed? > > Trevor Spain > Igneus Incorporated > > On 6/19/2013 10:12 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> A fire sprinkler system either controls a fire or it does not. If it does >> not control a fire it is at best a fire detection system that is slower to >> activate, and more expensive. It incorporates the worst features of both >> kinds of systems. It is no longer a fire control system. >> >> Overcoming the heat output of a fire is not like many other processes were >> are used to. We know that using nail guns and worm drive saws can increase >> the productivity of a crew using hammers and hand saws, but we know that the >> crew using muscle powered tools can build a home. It just takes more time. >> >> Firefighting and fire suppression are different. You either effectively >> apply agent (water) that in quantity that rapidly overcomes heat output of >> the fire, or you get out and protect exposures. >> >> A sprinkler system that only puts out half the water needed to control a >> fire does not control a fire in twice the time. It may get lucky and control >> the fire with the first head. Or it will do nothing useful. >> >> bv >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Christopher Cahill " < ccahill @ burnsmcd .com> >> To: sprinklerforum @lists. firesprinkler .org >> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 5:30:24 AM >> Subject: RE: Lighter NFPA 13 >> >> 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 >> ccahill @ burnsmcd .com >> www . burnsmcd .com >> >> Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For >> *Registered in: MN >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sprinklerforum -bounces@lists. firesprinkler .org [ mailto : >> sprinklerforum -bounces@lists. firesprinkler .org] On Behalf Of å... .... >> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:52 AM >> To: SprinklerFORUM @ firesprinkler .org >> 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 >> Sprinklerforum @lists. firesprinkler .org >> http ://lists. firesprinkler .org/ listinfo . cgi / sprinklerforum - >> firesprinkler .org >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum @lists. firesprinkler .org >> http ://lists. firesprinkler .org/ listinfo . cgi / sprinklerforum - >> firesprinkler .org >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
