• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Did they Know this before Mini Soda Vote?

Uncle Bob

Uncle Bob

Registered User
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
1,409
Location
Texas
2009 IRC, Section P2904; P2904.1 "Section P2904 shall apply to stand alone and multi-purpose wet pipe sprinkler systems that do not include the use of antifreeze. "

The requirement for Fire Sprinkler Systems in one and two single family dwelling, exclude the use of antifreeze.

Does this mean that they new about these dangers when they wrote and voted on the requirement for Sprinkler Systems at the Mini Soda hearings?

And, in order to reduce resistance to the passage of "Required Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems"; is this why they waited until August 18, 2010 to announce the warning?

You can see hundreds of videos of Fire Sprinkler test all the time. Where are the videos of Fire Sprinkler Systems tests where antifreeze was in system?

Perhaps an investigation into the lack of testing by the Residential Fire Sprinkler Advocates who bombarded us with videos and examples of the safety of using residential fire sprinkler systems; should be conducted!

Did they already know the dangers; and put off this announcement until after the passage in Mini Soda?

And is this why the use of antifreeze was excluded in the 2009 IRC requirement way back then?

Just a few questions,

Uncle Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ub,

you are being a little paranoid here. these fine folks that bring you plastic water piping for freezing winter climates for use in fire protection systems meant to save lives that require an accellerant and explosive to prevent them from freezing when installed underfloor or in attics and have no testing and meant to fatten their wallets? why how could think their was any deception involved in passing a code with a stacked deck of cards? seek counseling!:mrgreen:
 
Of course they knew it beofre; and were quite adept at keeping it under wraps. I think the best offensive tactic would be to bring it to the fore during the next code cycle and get rid of sprinklers. Isn't concealing information a form of fraud?
 
PWood,

"seek counseling!:mrgreen: "

Thanks for the advise. I'd take it; but, this insanity is one of things that keeps this old man alive and vibrant. :cool:

Uncle Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sounds like ICC and NFPA need to speak...

OK.. in Florida, you probably dont' need antifreeze or a dry system..
 
Do you really think the fire service folks would be so unethical and immoral as to slide this through without disclosing ALL the info? I mean after all these are the same people who routinely spike their wages right before retirement and screw Joe Citizen. I am sure NFPA and the sprinkler association would never put billions in profits ahead of telling the truth.
 
The incident investigated by the California State Fire Marshal's office occured in August of 2009. Let's see, wasn't St. Paul hearings in 2008.

P...a...r...a...n...o...i...d!
 
Beach:



How many people are going to die, how many dead babies will we be carrying out of homes because of this crazy code? Sorry, couldn't resist.
 
So the fire people advocated introducing a chemical to fire sprinkler systems without testing what occurred when a fire set the system off?!!! My new found confidence in the fire service overwhelming---not!! They are either idiots or ---not quite honest.
 
The scary part is that water is made up of Hydrogen (a flammable gas) and Oxygen which when combined with a flammable gas can cause an explosion or burn. Water has been known to kill babies when the fall in a bucket of it... only 1 inch deep.

Please we need to get rid of water in all homes.... AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!!!!!!

OH YEH and WOOD BURNS TOO.... NO WOOD!!!!

WHY did we ever let them put these hazards in homes. AND SHEETROCK increases mold growth. SHEETROCK and WATER AHHHHHHHHHH....
 
FryBldgGuy & Beach,

I'm surprised at your reaction to NFPA's antifreeze alert. Are you making fun of this "emergency" amendment by the NFPA and their warning conserning antifreeze in fire sprinkler systems?

Very Interesting,

Uncle Bob
 
Just making fun of the thread, UB! It's like sitting by the monkey cage at the Zoo watching the Monkeys throw poop......

Interesting? Not really. Humorous? Very.

Not planning on getting sucked into the same old debate and accusations....... thanks for playing.
 
UB

Read the entire section. P2904 is prescriptive and allows a multipurpose fire sprinkler system which shall supply domestic water to both fire srinklers and plumbing fixtures you do not want antifreeze in this sytem or a stand alone system that is seperate and independent from the water distribution system. A backflow preventer shall not be required to seperate a stand-alone system from the water distribution system. You do not want antifreeze in this one either without the backflow preventer. I am sure the fire guys will confirm that when using a domestic water supply a backflow preventer may make it impossible to design the sytem with a 3/4 or 1 inch supply line given the limited volume and pressure some potable water sources have.

P2904.1 Where installed, residential fire sprinkler systems, or portions therof, shall be in accordance with NFPA 13D or Section P2904, which shall be equvilant to NFPA 13D

Antifreeze is not allowed simply because of the multipurpose system design and a backflow is not required under the IRC for a stand alone system. Design the stand alone as a full 13D system you can install the antifreeze.
 
mtlogcabin said:
UBRead the entire section. P2904 is prescriptive and allows a multipurpose fire sprinkler system which shall supply domestic water to both fire srinklers and plumbing fixtures you do not want antifreeze in this sytem or a stand alone system that is seperate and independent from the water distribution system. A backflow preventer shall not be required to seperate a stand-alone system from the water distribution system. You do not want antifreeze in this one either without the backflow preventer. I am sure the fire guys will confirm that when using a domestic water supply a backflow preventer may make it impossible to design the sytem with a 3/4 or 1 inch supply line given the limited volume and pressure some potable water sources have.

P2904.1 Where installed, residential fire sprinkler systems, or portions therof, shall be in accordance with NFPA 13D or Section P2904, which shall be equvilant to NFPA 13D

Antifreeze is not allowed simply because of the multipurpose system design and a backflow is not required under the IRC for a stand alone system. Design the stand alone as a full 13D system you can install the antifreeze.
Click to expand...
log,

i run the cities backflow inspection program and every year a handful of devices fail! what does this mean for spot who drinks from the porcelain pony when the device fails? worse yet ,what does it mean for the humans when these devices fail, or the citizens of the city when antifreeze could be sucked back into the water system? could the new requirements kill more people and spots than it will save? stay tuned.
 
Properly installed antifreeze in automatic sprinkler systems is not harmful to Spot or his owners. The whole sprinkler system backflow hysteria is in case someone puts a different, unapproved type of antifreeze in the system.
 
Mt, Beach and CD:

"Spot On"

I had a long drawn out message saved on my desktop just to wait and see how far the spool's line ran off.

Good retort and by all means no offense to any participants!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top