• 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

Firefighter group pushes for sprinklers in new homes

There is absolutely no rational justification for sprinklers when NFPA states that smoke detectors are over 99% effective in preventing fire related deaths in residential homes. The push for sprinklers is nothing more than a money grab by the sprinkler industry and the fire service folks are little more than gullible pawns. If sprinklers would have been installed in every home built since 2000 the actual number of lives saved last year would be insignificant. If forensics number of 3800 is correct for last year, there still would have been far in excess of 3700 deaths last year. Sprinklers are an expensive solution for a non-existant problem. Now if you really want to have an immediate impact on the number of lives unnecessarily lost each year, cut all speed limits in half. Nearly 40,000 lives are lost every year and many more life-time injuries sustained for no other reason than our "need for speed". But of course there is no money in it for the fire folks.
 
NAHB = FOOLS
NAME CALLING = NOT HELPING

There is absolutely no rational justification for sprinklers
There has been plenty of rational justification presented on both sides of the argument, including counter points to every point you just repeated for the 100th time. You are just too stubborn to give even the slightest "win" to the side you disagree with.
 
It is easy to see both sides.

I'm sure that the cost to save even a fraction of 3800 lives may seem like a lot, I mean what if it keeps a home owner from getting granite counters, or stain master carpet, or hardwood floors with oriental area rugs. I mean what is a life worth?

The flip side, for me, is why we would allow the government to nanny people to death with regulation after regulation. They shouldn't but it feels like a hard pill to swallow when they readily accept all the industry driven green codes which save no lives, line pocket books, and is all based on fraudulent science.
 
I will not give them a win--they will have to earn it and I will not be swayed by their campaign of misinformation. They tell half the story and assume that because they represent the fire service that everyone will accept what they claim as being truthful. The tired old rambling of what homeowners may choose over a rfs while putting their family at risk is nothing more than emotional sensationalism. Yet many of these fanatics continue to reside in homes, with their loved ones, without the benefit of rfs. Yeah, it is not required by code but they adamantly chant that anyone in a home without rfs is putting the lives of loved ones at risk. Why will they not provide their own families with a level of protection that they claim is so badly needed? Well its either because they know they are spewing BS or they are not willing to spend the necessary dollars to safeguard the lives of their loved ones. So now we know what dollar value the fire service places on a life and it certainly is not going to interfere in their purchase of their new boat, truck or Harley. They can't even convince people their product is necessary without turning to emotional blackmail.

Thankfully intelligent code officials and the NAHB are out setting the record straight and pointing their elected officials in the right direction.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, SHEESH.
 
It seems odd to me that in my 35 years in the construction industry, the last 20 in code inforcement that I have yet to see a SFD with a sprinkler system.

May I raise a question? How many persons that are either posting, reading or advocating sprinklers have them in your house.

Long live freedom of choice!!!
 
Our former FC installed them in his new house. He had a lightning strike about a year later (no one home) the FD showed up and put the fire out. Not one head discharged because there were no heads in the area of the fire, a mechanical room, but the smoke damage throughout the house was significant.

Will the help? Yes

Are they the save all? No

Outlaw drunkenesss and smoking in home might save more lives.

http://news.yahoo.com/heavy-drinking-ups-odds-death-house-fire-130805795.html

THURSDAY, Sept. 15 (HealthDay News) -- Drinking heavily may increase a person's risk of dying in a house fire, researchers warn.

When cigarettes are involved the risk of death is even higher, the Australian investigators added. They noted, however, some victims died needlessly and could have survived had they reacted in time.

In conducting the study, the team analyzed coroners' records for 95 fire victims in Australia. The researchers found that 58 percent of the victims tested positive on blood-alcohol tests -- often with extremely high alcohol levels.

Most of the victims in the study were alone at the time of the fire. Nearly half of the drunk victims were sleeping.

The study, published in the September issue of the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, also revealed that the drunk victims were less likely than those who were sober to have had obstacles preventing their escape from the fire, such as barred windows or a blocked exit.

As a result, at least some of them might have survived had they been roused in time, the report indicated. Smoke detectors or having other people in the house who were sober could also have prevented some of the deaths, the authors pointed out in a journal news release.

Smoking was the most common culprit behind the deaths of the drunk victims. The study found that victims who had been drinking were roughly 4.5 times more likely to have died in fires that involved "smoking materials," like cigarette butts.

"A key message is that smoking and drinking together constitute a high-risk activity, even in your own home," the study's lead researcher, Dorothy Bruck of Victoria University in Melbourne, said in the news release.

Aside from not combining smoking while drinking, the researchers advised that people can help reduce their fire risks in a number of ways, including:

  • If you're drinking, always have someone else in the house who stays sober.Install smoke detectors in bedrooms or living areas, in addition to hallways.
  • If you smoke, buy fire-safe cigarettes that self-extinguish.
The study authors noted that this high percentage of drunk house-fire victims is consistent with what's been revealed in other studies from the United States, Europe and Canada.
 
I feel sprinkles should not be required in new SFR, except for a few exceptions. A larger number of the fires in SFR are occuring in older homes such as ballon-framed construction. Newer homes have draftstopping and fireblocking requirements to address some of these issues and smoke alarms do help trumendously. An area that I would be in favor of sprinklers in a new home is if the home is using engineered I-joists with no protection, tests have shown these framing members will burn through in approximately 8 minutes were as conventional framing takes a lot longer. How do you address the maintenance and testing requirements. Once the system is in very few people will inspect and test the system on a regular basis and the ones that do not inspect or test my end up having a false scene of security.

That is my two cents
 
I will not give them a win--they will have to earn it and I will not be swayed by their campaign of misinformation.
Yeah, we've got it. Codes are an assault on our freedom and people should be allowed to build with whatever and however they want. Or most codes are okay, but sprinklers are somehow taking things too far. Blah, blah, blah.

May I raise a question? How many persons that are either posting, reading or advocating sprinklers have them in your house.
I've never built my own home. Nobody here has been advocating for code required retrofitting of existing homes with RFS. If I built a new house, they'd be present.

The mistake both of you make is assuming that the fire service perceives this as a possible overnight success. We don't think this will end fire deaths next year, or five or fifty years from now. This is a big picture issue. A "new" house will be "old" someday. An "old" house will be torn down (or suffer some other fate) and made "new" someday. It's inevitable. Light frame wood homes rarely stand for mulitple centuries. If we start now, we'll eventually have sprinklers protecting most homes. Once again, you'll never finish a race you don't start.

Flame on.
 
Once the system is in very few people will inspect and test the system on a regular basis and the ones that do not inspect or test my end up having a false scene of security.
If you educate yourself on the simplicity of the systems we're talking about, you'll see this as the non-issue that it is.
 
If you educate yourself on the simplicity of the systems we're talking about, you'll see this as the non-issue that it is.
I agree if you can keep it to the simple systems. We al know of overzealous code officials (fire & building) who demand more than what is adopted.

The FDC question on another post, or an area may have low water pressure or fire flow that today you can build a house because it is not part of the equation but because a sprinkler is now required you can't build the house with taking those factors into consideration in order to have a working RFS system

If a sprinkler designer is involved his insurance will most likely prevent him from designing and/or installing a system with an in-adequate water supply.

What is in the IRC can be easily achieved on most municiple water supplies.

Will the plumbers be allowed to install such a system or will liscensing laws require sprinkler installers.

There are many variables around the country and sprinklering was always in the IRC as an appendix that could have been adopted on the local or state level but it was easier for the fire service to move together nationally with the help of the sprinkler industry and get it moved into the code body and now those jurisdictions that are ammending it out are being preceived as not caring about saving lives or protecting the firefighters that serve the public.

Permitguy is correct it will take 50 to 100 years before you will even know if the system might be effective.

less than 2% of my sfr housing stock has been built in the last 9 years. the majoriy are 80 to 90 years old and will be ther another 75 or 80 thank to "historical building" laws
 
Last edited by a moderator:
permitguy said:
If you educate yourself on the simplicity of the systems we're talking about, you'll see this as the non-issue that it is.
Absolutely agree, not much different than plumbing a home. A lot less difficult than changing batteries is an old smoke detector. Sheeeesh

And so much less invasive than telling you your killing the planet and have to keep your thermostat programed a certain way. Sheeeeeeeeeeesh
 
Ok...I'll be quick....the maintenance is even easy on a 13D system...just crack a valve and allow a few gallons of water to run into a sump or bucket.

Regarding the overkill.....(AGREE) no need for a FDC on a 13D or R313 unless there is no water available (at all) in a housing development......Ok done...back at it fellas :)
 
Why don't the organization's pushing SFD fire sprinklers turn their efforts to making sure that such devices are required in all multiple unit dwellings first? There are still many jurisdictions where this is not a requirement and it's a much larger safety issue than it is in SFDs.
 
That must be regional. It's been many, many years since I've seen a multi-family dwelling built without them. It's been a requirement to install sprinklers throughout any building with a group R fire area since the '03 IBC.
 
permitguy said:
That must be regional. It's been many, many years since I've seen a multi-family dwelling built without them. It's been a requirement to install sprinklers throughout any building with a group R fire area since the '03 IBC.
State level here. Mt ammended that section back to the old UBC exception of 16 units. For the 09 codes it states

(12) Delete Subsection 903.2.8 and replace with the following:

"1. An approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided in all Group R buildings meeting any of the following criteria:

"a. 16 or more transient guests or 8 or more transient guestrooms;

"b. 16 or more occupants in other than dwelling units;

"c. 8 or more dwelling units; or

"d. more than 2 stories.

"2. In lieu of the above required automatic sprinkler system in buildings not more than three stories above the lowest level of exit discharge, each transient guestroom may be provided with at least one door leading directly to an exterior exit access that leads directly to approved exits.

"3. "Transient guest" for the purpose of this subsection shall mean an occupant who is primarily transient in nature, staying at one location for 30 days or less."

"4. "The requirements for automatic sprinkler systems for R-4 occupancies are found in ARM 24.301.146."

Still under the 06 for residential
 
Thanks for the welcome and the answer permitguy. We are rural and close in code to mtlogcabin.
 
Top