• 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

Good convincing arguments against Residential Fire Sprinkleres

peach said:
Economics should never ever be the reason we do or don't adopt codes. raising a slab a couple of inches is not the same cost as a RFS.. more fill
Click to expand...
Economics Vs Life saving???????????????

circulus in probando (Latin for "circle in proving") or circular reasoning
 
Last edited by a moderator:
we enforce what's adopted (like it or not).. economics of the issue are decided way above our pay grade.

It's not circular reasoning.. outlaw smoking and bad wiring.. many fewer residential fires..

Brent Snyder (bless his soul) told me many years ago that economics are not the right reason to violate the code. And I agree.. I just have YET to see good quantifable evidence that sprinklers are the answer.
 
Peach

You are saying "Economics should never ever be the reason we do or don't adopt codes. "

Then you say

"...raising a slab a couple of inches is not the same cost as a RFS..."

Like it or not, That is circular reasoning
 
Mark:You came here a few weeks ago and immediately started beating a dead horse, we have debated these issues ad nauseum , many here were at Minneapolis personally witnessing the fraud perpetuated by the Sprinkler Industry, others even took their bribe money to go and vote for residential sprinklers. I, and others here, sat though the webcast to witness the thoroughly disgusting situation, hospitality suites and all. Before you stir up the animosity again I suggest you go back to our old Bulletin Board and review the prior heated discussions, here is a good starting point. The ICC pulled the old board probably because of the heated discussions on this very issue, we all seem to be getting along now, none of us want to go back to the old animosity.I do want to address one statement you just made:

Mark said:
Economics Vs Life saving???????????????
Click to expand...
The 1998 Canadian government study showed $38 million per life saved, there are a lot better places to throw money to save lives than fire sprinklers.Mark I do not want to appear to be unwelcoming to new members, I understand that you are an architect and I like and work with architects on a daily basis, I tried to stay out of this but finally figured that somebody ought to tell you that you are beating a dead horse, a horse that got the old Bulletin Board shut down, and at the very least you should review what's gone before on this issue before reigniting those old animosities. To use that link I think you still have to be an ICC member, that long thread I linked you to is only one of many long threads there on this issue, to easily find the sprinkler threads just look for those with a large post count. Happy reading.Again I want to remind you that this thread is about Good convincing arguments against Residential Fire Sprinkler. View attachment 145

View attachment 145

/monthly_2010_06/canadian-study..jpg.94647fde71540428c72ccf51c072aafc.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've said it a dozen times.. I think they (RFS) are a good idea... I just don't think it needs to be in the body of the code.. jurisdictions who want them can adopt appendix P (I think) of iRC 2006.. then you've got them... not all jurisdictions are like minded.

Think what you want, mark.. passive protection is always better than active protection.
 
conarb said:
You came here a few weeks ago and immediately started beating a dead horse
Click to expand...
No I’ve been a member as long as you have, 10/09, and I only responded to one sided posts, If you feel that discussion will be the demise of this board then there is no reason for the board. If you do not like or agree to my posts, ignore them or report them to Jeff
 
Just because you are wrong isn't a good reason to ignore the discussion. We all came in 10/09 .. some of us have a long history with the old ICC BB.

Feel free to leave... or at least consider others' opinions.
 
\ said:
No I’ve been a member as long as you have, 10/09, and I only responded to one sided posts, If you feel that discussion will be the demise of this board then there is no reason for the board. If you do not like or agree to my posts, ignore them or report them to Jeff
Click to expand...
Apparently you didn't migrate over from the old Bulletin Board? If not you owe us the courtesy to review what's gone before, at least read though the link I've posted, if after reviewing the issue you still feel that you want to reignite old animosities than I think that both sides of this debate should consider notifying Jeff, since this subject has died down many of us are friends again, Hell I even talk to that old irascible Marshal Burns.
 
ConArb

You have no idea

you owe ME a little courtesy

And I was a member of the ICC webpage before you
 
play nice...

RFS are a really sensitive spot for alot of us.

However they made it into 2009 IRC.. they are there.

I'll keep it professional.. everybody else do the same.. nothing personal.

We are code professionals
 
Since this thread has been “reported” to moderators once again............as a moderator I must say that if the OP would like the thread to be stopped, then that person should initiate the request or Admin can choose to put it in lockdown. Personally, I believe in equal time and the freedom to express one’s opinion and as a supporter of RFS and even one of those who can also accept alternative points of view or measures to protect and provide civilians with a greater means for escape, I would kindly suggest all posters should keep their comments “professional” and not personal hence the (tried to be clever gremlin posted previously).



The fact remains regardless of any of our collective opinions or personal passions on the topic, the code requirement is there and likely not to be removed in future cycles. As others have historically mentioned, the battleground (pro or con) will be at state and local levels. Again, we are all entitled to our opinions on the matter and this thread as titled is “convincing arguments against” and those who care to continue to participate please keep it civil and professional since I do not see so far any prerequisite subject matter to go into lockdown. Personally, I do not like to block or shut down threads and hope that concerned parties can just agree to disagree and possibly move on to other “hot” passionate matters of discussion.



Everyone here has valid material to contribute!
 
There was not much uproar when FEMA forced the Incorporating floodplain management into building code.
Click to expand...
Thats because most jurisdictions already had a FEMA compliant flood plain management program in place.

I agree with others

1. RFS's are a good idea.

2. To watch the voting process was sad and offensive.

3. The battle is still at the local level.

4. Some of the statistics and information is skewed.

5. We will have to agree to disagree.
 
Amazing. This thread was started as "Good convincing arguments against RFS" and gets hijacked into the old debate about how great RFS are. If there was an interest in debating RFS in general, the NFPA lemmings should start a separate thread that encourages discussion from both camps. Enhanced safety gained by RFS is virtually non-existant. Of the single family dwellings built in you jurisdiction since smoke detectors were required in new construction, how many fires have you had that resulted in loss of life in the homes contructed? In my jurisdiction the answer is a resounding ZERO. The fire guys really hated it when they had to answer that question. They try to qualify their answer with various degrees of BS but the answer is still ZERO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top