FM William Burns
REGISTERED
Be sure to check the One Link detectors if installed a few years ago since there was a recall on them due to battery issues discovered in student housing in MD. The new models have solved the issue.
-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
Good convincing arguments against Residential Fire Sprinkleres
- Thread starter Little_Guy
- Start date
Interconnected smoke detectors are a great idea.. even in a multi level structure (particularly when they insulate the roof and do basement renovations).. no sense not enforcing the code on all floors... even in old homes... with old homeowners (like a recent one where the couple was about 900 years old).
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Last year 3,225 people died in residential fires in the United States and 14,175 were injured. Affordable technology has been available to fix this problem since the 1970s, but little has been done to implement it, yet these “statistics” repeat year after year.
Scottsdale, AZ has required fire sprinklers in all new homes for the past 15 years and not one person has died in any fire sprinklered homes but there were 13 deaths in homes without.
What are the arguments against residential fire sprinklers?
• “SPRINKLERS OPERATE ALL AT ONCE FLOODING EVERY ROOM IN THE HOUSE.”
Answer: Only the sprinkler directly affected by a fire will operate, other sprinklers in the system will not go off.
• “SPRINKLERS WILL LEAK.”
Answer: The likelihood that a sprinkler will accidentally discharge because of a manufacturing defect is extremely rare. Sprinkler mishaps are generally less likely and severe than home plumbing system problems.
• “SMOKE ALARMS ARE ALL YOU NEED.”
Answer: Fire sprinklers are the only technology that can automatically control or extinguish a fire. Smoke alarms are essential for every home – including homes with sprinklers. But smoke alarms are only designed to detect a fire, not extinguish it.
• “SPRINKLERS COST TOO MUCH.”
Answer: Increasing demand for home fire sprinklers is driving down cost; in some areas well below $1 per square foot in new construction. Nationally, a conservative estimate is 1-1 ½ % of the total building cost. Homeowner’s insurance discounts, ranging from 5% to 30% off premiums, may help pay for sprinkler installation.
• “WATER DAMAGE FROM SPRINKLERS IS WORSE THAN THE FIRE.”
Answer: A sprinkler controls a fire with only a tiny fraction of the water used by the fire department hoses. Sprinklers detect fires early, automatically controlling flames and smoke, and typically limiting damage to a single area. In about 90% of home fires, only one sprinkler was necessary to control the fire.
• “SPRINKLERS ARE UGLY”
Answer: Today’s home fire sprinklers are inconspicuous—smaller than recessed lighting or smoke alarms. They can be painted by the manufacturer to blend in with custom interiors. In ceilings, sprinklers can even be completely concealed beneath color-matched plates.
http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/fire/ResidentialSprinklers.htm
Scottsdale, AZ has required fire sprinklers in all new homes for the past 15 years and not one person has died in any fire sprinklered homes but there were 13 deaths in homes without.
What are the arguments against residential fire sprinklers?
• “SPRINKLERS OPERATE ALL AT ONCE FLOODING EVERY ROOM IN THE HOUSE.”
Answer: Only the sprinkler directly affected by a fire will operate, other sprinklers in the system will not go off.
• “SPRINKLERS WILL LEAK.”
Answer: The likelihood that a sprinkler will accidentally discharge because of a manufacturing defect is extremely rare. Sprinkler mishaps are generally less likely and severe than home plumbing system problems.
• “SMOKE ALARMS ARE ALL YOU NEED.”
Answer: Fire sprinklers are the only technology that can automatically control or extinguish a fire. Smoke alarms are essential for every home – including homes with sprinklers. But smoke alarms are only designed to detect a fire, not extinguish it.
• “SPRINKLERS COST TOO MUCH.”
Answer: Increasing demand for home fire sprinklers is driving down cost; in some areas well below $1 per square foot in new construction. Nationally, a conservative estimate is 1-1 ½ % of the total building cost. Homeowner’s insurance discounts, ranging from 5% to 30% off premiums, may help pay for sprinkler installation.
• “WATER DAMAGE FROM SPRINKLERS IS WORSE THAN THE FIRE.”
Answer: A sprinkler controls a fire with only a tiny fraction of the water used by the fire department hoses. Sprinklers detect fires early, automatically controlling flames and smoke, and typically limiting damage to a single area. In about 90% of home fires, only one sprinkler was necessary to control the fire.
• “SPRINKLERS ARE UGLY”
Answer: Today’s home fire sprinklers are inconspicuous—smaller than recessed lighting or smoke alarms. They can be painted by the manufacturer to blend in with custom interiors. In ceilings, sprinklers can even be completely concealed beneath color-matched plates.
http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/fire/ResidentialSprinklers.htm
water damage from sprinklers is one reason insurance companies didn't give an insurance break for installing them.. maybe different now... but way back even one of fire inspectors who built a new house chose not to install them.
Properly working, code installed and maintained, smoke detectors will save lives.. the sprinkler system may (or may not .. but probably will) reduce property damage from the fire.
Properly working, code installed and maintained, smoke detectors will save lives.. the sprinkler system may (or may not .. but probably will) reduce property damage from the fire.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Home Sprinklers Score ‘A’ in NIST Cost-Benefit Study
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tb2007_1011.htm#sprinklers
Sometimes life-saving technologies seem beyond the reach of the average person. If you put residential fire sprinklers in that category, think again. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) economists ran the numbers. Their benefit-cost analysis found that for new home construction, a multipurpose network sprinkler system that connects to a house’s regular water supply and piping makes good economic sense.
NIST’s Benefit-Cost Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems report, released last month, examines data from 2002 to 2005 to value the economic performance of a residential “wet-pipe” fire sprinkler system. The additional economic benefits from installation of a multipurpose network sprinkler system (the least costly wet-pipe system available) are estimated for three types of newly constructed single-family houses that are also equipped with smoke detectors. The study builds on a prior cost analysis developed by NIST’s Building and Fire Research Laboratory and offers a current analysis of the economics of residential fire sprinkler technology.
According to NIST, the cost in 2005 dollars for adding a multipurpose network sprinkler system to a house under construction was approximately $2,075 for a 3,338-square-foot colonial-style house, $1,895 for a 2,257-square-foot townhouse and $829 for a 1,171-square-foot ranch house. However when a house fire occurs, the estimated benefits of a residential fire sprinkler system include a 100 percent reduction in civilian fatalities and a 57 percent reduction in civilian injuries, a 32 percent reduction of both direct property damage (property losses that would not be covered by insurance) and indirect property costs (fire-related expenses such as temporary shelter, missed work, extra food costs, legal expenses, transportation, emotional counseling and childcare). Houses with sprinklers, in addition to smoke alarms, also received an 8 percent reduction in homeowner insurance premiums, over houses only equipped with smoke alarms.
After subtracting installation costs and weighting the benefits by the odds that a house would catch on fire, NIST economists concluded that, depending on assumptions, the net gain from installing a sprinkler system (in 2005 dollars) would vary between $704 and $4,801 for the colonial-style house, between $884 and $4,981 for the townhouse, and between $1,950 and $6,048 for the ranch-style house, over the 30-year study period. In all cases examined, the researchers found that the data supported the finding that multipurpose network residential fire sprinkler systems are cost-effective.
The United States Fire Administration (USFA), part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), funded the research.
Benefit-Cost Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems (NISTIR 7451) by David T. Butry, M. Hayden Brown and Sieglinde K. Fuller can be downloaded at www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/publications/nistirs/NISTIR_7451_Oct07.pdf.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tb2007_1011.htm#sprinklers
Sometimes life-saving technologies seem beyond the reach of the average person. If you put residential fire sprinklers in that category, think again. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) economists ran the numbers. Their benefit-cost analysis found that for new home construction, a multipurpose network sprinkler system that connects to a house’s regular water supply and piping makes good economic sense.
NIST’s Benefit-Cost Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems report, released last month, examines data from 2002 to 2005 to value the economic performance of a residential “wet-pipe” fire sprinkler system. The additional economic benefits from installation of a multipurpose network sprinkler system (the least costly wet-pipe system available) are estimated for three types of newly constructed single-family houses that are also equipped with smoke detectors. The study builds on a prior cost analysis developed by NIST’s Building and Fire Research Laboratory and offers a current analysis of the economics of residential fire sprinkler technology.
According to NIST, the cost in 2005 dollars for adding a multipurpose network sprinkler system to a house under construction was approximately $2,075 for a 3,338-square-foot colonial-style house, $1,895 for a 2,257-square-foot townhouse and $829 for a 1,171-square-foot ranch house. However when a house fire occurs, the estimated benefits of a residential fire sprinkler system include a 100 percent reduction in civilian fatalities and a 57 percent reduction in civilian injuries, a 32 percent reduction of both direct property damage (property losses that would not be covered by insurance) and indirect property costs (fire-related expenses such as temporary shelter, missed work, extra food costs, legal expenses, transportation, emotional counseling and childcare). Houses with sprinklers, in addition to smoke alarms, also received an 8 percent reduction in homeowner insurance premiums, over houses only equipped with smoke alarms.
After subtracting installation costs and weighting the benefits by the odds that a house would catch on fire, NIST economists concluded that, depending on assumptions, the net gain from installing a sprinkler system (in 2005 dollars) would vary between $704 and $4,801 for the colonial-style house, between $884 and $4,981 for the townhouse, and between $1,950 and $6,048 for the ranch-style house, over the 30-year study period. In all cases examined, the researchers found that the data supported the finding that multipurpose network residential fire sprinkler systems are cost-effective.
The United States Fire Administration (USFA), part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), funded the research.
Benefit-Cost Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems (NISTIR 7451) by David T. Butry, M. Hayden Brown and Sieglinde K. Fuller can be downloaded at www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/publications/nistirs/NISTIR_7451_Oct07.pdf.
FM William Burns
REGISTERED
Having many ties in SE Florida.......things have changed (post 94' when vacating) and savy consumers should shop around. In Michigan regionally, it's between 6-12% amongst independents and a couple of biggies (on the fire side of the policy premimum) and as mentioned previously, hopefully the fire service will finally persuade those on the hill (been working at it for 10 years) to finally accept the sprinkler incentive act to sweeten the bitterness.
conarb
REGISTERED
And the sprinkler industry propaganda goes on, just look at the meter charges in an expensive area. I thought this thread was about "good convincing arguments as to why not to use sprinklers"?
View attachment 141
View attachment 141
/monthly_2010_05/ebmud2..jpg.0d797e6e7ecb6aae4f66c2da3f72684f.jpg
View attachment 141
View attachment 141
/monthly_2010_05/ebmud2..jpg.0d797e6e7ecb6aae4f66c2da3f72684f.jpg
mark handler
SAWHORSE
What is the life of your grandchild worth?conarb said:
fatboy
Administrator
CA, in a combination system (P2904) there is no additional tap or meter, it is part of the potable domestic plumbing system, a little extra piping and heads.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Third-Degree Burn Complications
•Infection. Third-degree burns are at risk for infection. Infection of the wound area can lead to sepsis and septic shock. Septic shock is extremely dangerous for the patient, because their blood pressure begins to drop rapidly. Infection can also cause loss of skin grafts, which means additional surgeries.
•Compartment Syndrome. Damage to muscle tissue can lead to compartment syndrome, where fluid retention (edema) in the muscle tissues results in a tourniquet effect, stopping blood flow. Muscle tissue damage can be hard to detect, and often requires visual exploration of the compartment. Left untreated, compartment syndrome can lead to necrosis of deep muscle tissue and sepsis, or in severe cases, limb loss.
•Problems Due to Fluid Loss. Fluid loss poses a problem for burn patients because under-resuscitation and over-resuscitation can both result in serious complications. Consequences of under-resuscitation are renal failure (kidney failure) and multiple systems organ failure. Consequences of over-resuscitation are edema and local tissue hypoxia or airway obstruction in severe cases.
•Seizures. Children are most at risk for having seizures due to electrolyte imbalance, hypoxemia (low blood oxygen), infection, or drugs.
Scarring of the tissues near peripheral nerves can result in neurological complications. These include:
•Peripheral nervous system dysfunction
•Central nervous system (CNS) dysfunction
•Seizure disorders
•Symptoms mimicking progressive, debilitating spinal cord disorders
The major cause of death after burns is respiratory tract injury or complications in the respiratory tract. These include:
•Inhalation injury
•Aspiration in unconscious patients
•Bacterial pneumonia
•Pulmonary edema
•Posttraumatic pulmonary insufficiency
•Infection. Third-degree burns are at risk for infection. Infection of the wound area can lead to sepsis and septic shock. Septic shock is extremely dangerous for the patient, because their blood pressure begins to drop rapidly. Infection can also cause loss of skin grafts, which means additional surgeries.
•Compartment Syndrome. Damage to muscle tissue can lead to compartment syndrome, where fluid retention (edema) in the muscle tissues results in a tourniquet effect, stopping blood flow. Muscle tissue damage can be hard to detect, and often requires visual exploration of the compartment. Left untreated, compartment syndrome can lead to necrosis of deep muscle tissue and sepsis, or in severe cases, limb loss.
•Problems Due to Fluid Loss. Fluid loss poses a problem for burn patients because under-resuscitation and over-resuscitation can both result in serious complications. Consequences of under-resuscitation are renal failure (kidney failure) and multiple systems organ failure. Consequences of over-resuscitation are edema and local tissue hypoxia or airway obstruction in severe cases.
•Seizures. Children are most at risk for having seizures due to electrolyte imbalance, hypoxemia (low blood oxygen), infection, or drugs.
Scarring of the tissues near peripheral nerves can result in neurological complications. These include:
•Peripheral nervous system dysfunction
•Central nervous system (CNS) dysfunction
•Seizure disorders
•Symptoms mimicking progressive, debilitating spinal cord disorders
The major cause of death after burns is respiratory tract injury or complications in the respiratory tract. These include:
•Inhalation injury
•Aspiration in unconscious patients
•Bacterial pneumonia
•Pulmonary edema
•Posttraumatic pulmonary insufficiency
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
How many fires have been in the new homes with fire sprinklers.
I have done numerous liability and property insurance inspections for various companies and not one form has ever asked about whether a sprinkler system is installed or not.
I can not protect my grandchildren from all the things that may harm them everyday in life. riding in a car, riding their bikes, fishing by the river bank. swimming, climbing trees or an infected tooth that turned into a blood infection that one almost died from.
To play on ones emotions is not the way to decide what should be mandatory code requirements for everyone else.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
But you can protect them from fire, just like seat belts help protect from most crashes.mtlogcabin said:
benefits of a residential fire sprinkler system include a 100 percent reduction in civilian fatalities and a 57 percent reduction in civilian injuries, a 32 percent reduction of direct property damage
Last edited by a moderator:
mark handler
SAWHORSE
The same arguments when smoke detectors were required. Cost vs Benifit
The same arguments when seat belts were required. Cost vs Benifit
The same arguments when second means of egress were required. Cost vs Benifit
The same arguments when seat belts were required. Cost vs Benifit
The same arguments when second means of egress were required. Cost vs Benifit
packsaddle
Silver Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 237
I agree with the "cost vs benefit" premise.
It "costs" taxpayers more and "benefits" the NFPA.
It "costs" taxpayers more and "benefits" the NFPA.
An earlier post gave a statistic that Smoke Detectors are 99.45% effective in saving lives. That is way better than anything attributed to sprinklers, and surely better odds than you would get in Los Wages. The only caveat? The smoke detectors have to be installed correctly and properly maintained [battery backup]. But that is the ICC speak for anything: 'according to the manufacturer's instructions'.
FM William Burns
REGISTERED
You guys..............
View attachment 142
View attachment 142
/monthly_2010_06/deadhorse..gif.b473c45bea6383720af7ea3d1a231d46.gif
View attachment 142
View attachment 142/monthly_2010_06/deadhorse..gif.b473c45bea6383720af7ea3d1a231d46.gif
Last edited by a moderator:
The first "new" car my dad every bought was for a trip from SD to CA... he had to PAY for seatbelts to be installed.. my brother and I traded places in the back WINDOW of that buick most of the way there and back..
My point is.. we survived.. our house had old knob and tube wiring... we survived that too... we knew how to get out of the windows (another story for another day).. we didn't have fire sprinklers OR fire alarms...
FM is right.. we may be beating a dead cow (wearing a saddle)... huh?
My point is.. we survived.. our house had old knob and tube wiring... we survived that too... we knew how to get out of the windows (another story for another day).. we didn't have fire sprinklers OR fire alarms...
FM is right.. we may be beating a dead cow (wearing a saddle)... huh?
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Ya and now we have indoor plumbing. We evolve, we move on.
You cannot choose which codes you want to enforce.
You cannot choose which codes you want to enforce.
Last edited by a moderator:
texas transplant
Silver Member
No we can't chose which codes to enforce, however state governments and our City Councils can decide what will be enforced. Right now I am under orders that I will not bring a code update to the City Council that would expand sprinkler requirements past the 06 group of codes, period. Its kind of a moot point anyway because right now the state has a ban on sprinkler requirements in single family homes.
Maybe economics shouldn't govern what happens with life safety, but there are a lot of folks out there that can make decisions like that and will. In a down economy you will also see more resistance from the home builders groups etc. to anything that adds cost.
One other reason it is so hard to sell sprinklers in some areas is, when the Energy codes came along, you could sell some one on the fact that their heating and cooling bills were going to go down, show them a calc that indicated this is a good deal (at least some times). When you talk about safety and increasing safety, where is the pay back. Put a dollar amount on what good SFR sprinklers are going to do me. Besides I am never going to have a fire in my house, that only happens to other people, so they are never going to go off and never going to save a life and I spent money on them, what a waste. (Tongue in cheek guys)
Maybe economics shouldn't govern what happens with life safety, but there are a lot of folks out there that can make decisions like that and will. In a down economy you will also see more resistance from the home builders groups etc. to anything that adds cost.
One other reason it is so hard to sell sprinklers in some areas is, when the Energy codes came along, you could sell some one on the fact that their heating and cooling bills were going to go down, show them a calc that indicated this is a good deal (at least some times). When you talk about safety and increasing safety, where is the pay back. Put a dollar amount on what good SFR sprinklers are going to do me. Besides I am never going to have a fire in my house, that only happens to other people, so they are never going to go off and never going to save a life and I spent money on them, what a waste. (Tongue in cheek guys)
Last edited by a moderator:
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Articles of Interest Regarding the Residential Sprinkler Mandate
http://noburn.com/news/residential-sprinkler-mandate
http://noburn.com/news/residential-sprinkler-mandate
Last edited by a moderator:
Economics should never ever be the reason we do or don't adopt codes. I'm still standing on, if you want them adopt the appendix that requires them.. it shouldn't be in the body of the code. Forgo adoping 2009 and see what happens.. or amend it out..
RFS are a good idea... I just don't like they way they became mandatory in 2009 IRC
RFS are a good idea... I just don't like they way they became mandatory in 2009 IRC
mark handler
SAWHORSE
There was not much uproar when FEMA forced the Incorporating floodplain management into building code. Purely an economic issue, sprinklers save lives, raising the slab 2 inches in the IRC, Purely an economic issue, saves no lives. Floodplain management is purely an economic issue, saves no lives.
And no uproar.
And no uproar.