REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

[brudgers]

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

If you outlawed smoking, you would save far more lives...and avoid a large fraction of residential fire deaths to boot.

Putting out the fire will never be as good as preventing it from starting.

 

[FM William Burns]

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Pc: Feel free to print them off for future ammo or just have them call me

Brudgers: 100% totally agree hence my tag line

 

[incognito]

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

The non building inspector in me wonders if I want to wake up in the moring next to BIG BROTHER (government) or my wife or maybe Pamala Anderson.1) Will I be able to go down to the local hardware store or the the big box to get parts for the RFS system?

2) Will I be able to do add-ons or make repairs or is that another expence when I have to hire it done?

3) Will an outside company have to inspect the system like the commercial jobs and certify the project when installed and after?

4) Who will make sure the little wife does'nt hang the newly pressed shirts on the sprinkler heads?

5) Why are we burding only new residential construction with this? What about grandma's place?

6) Will the insurance company lower my rates then a year later raise them again?

7) Will the district fire department expand bodies (add more employees) and need a levy hike for payrole raising my taxes?

Wondering minds need to know, and my mine is wondering right now! :roll:

1). Typical homeowner or contractor--no way do not even think about it.

2). Another expense. Only certified installers can do the work.

3). Yes and on a yearly basis after install. Plan on $50.00 to $100.00 per year per dwelling.

4). No one.

5). Low hanging fruit. Can you imagine the outcry if you tried to go into existing houses. Its not about safety, its about the $$$$.

6). The savings in insurance rates won't even cover the yearly inspection fee. Yeah I checked.

7). Who do you think is going to provide the yearly inspections when private companies can't keep up with the extra workload.

 

[jar546]

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

My next home will be built. I am done remodeling homes, especially my own.

My next home will have a sprinkler system installed by choice.

If I don't do it until 2011 then it will be installed as mandated by State adopted codes.

If the State legislators meddle with the adopted codes to cirumvent the sprinklers, my next home will have them anyway.

Really, what's the big deal?

We have a lot of older homes well over 100 years of age. There are fires frequently. I see how fast the fire moves and the devastation left behind.

Children, the elderly and pets are at risk during a fire more than an able bodied person.

I'd rather have a cold, wet dog than a crispy hot dog.

 

[brudgers]

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Brudgers: 100% totally agree hence my tag line

In all seriousness, if your goal is saving lives due to residential fires, advocacy to end smoking is going to be much more effective than advocacy for residential sprinklers will ever be.

Even if it's not as fun.

 

[FM William Burns]

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

3). Yes and on a yearly basis after install. Plan on $50.00 to $100.00 per year per dwelling.In all seriousness, if your goal is saving lives due to residential fires, advocacy to end smoking is going to be much more effective than advocacy for residential sprinklers will ever be.

Even if it's not as fun.

(3) The installing standard and the code that references the standard do not require annual inspections or maintenance by any outside entity other than the owner of the system. (See IRC R313 and NFPA 13D 4.1.1 and A4.1.1)

The homeowner gets to choose this aspect though. The typical operating instructions provided to the system owner cover the material listed and as recommended for annual testing and maintenance. The only way that a mandate for annual testing or maintenance can exist is if the jurisdictional adoption process calls for a more stringent provision to what is covered in the model code and standard.

Historically the fire service has provided pub- ed to great lengths on hazards such as this and cooking and portable heating (the leading causes) yet we continue to experience failure rates causing the desire and success to initiate the new requirement (where applicable).

 

[TJacobs]

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

If you outlawed smoking, you would save far more lives...and avoid a large fraction of residential fire deaths to boot.Putting out the fire will never be as good as preventing it from starting.

If smokers would quit of their own free will they could afford sprinklers in their new home in short order... :lol: :lol:

 

[brudgers]

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

If you outlawed smoking, you would save far more lives...and avoid a large fraction of residential fire deaths to boot.Putting out the fire will never be as good as preventing it from starting.

If smokers would quit of their own free will they could afford sprinklers in their new home in short order... :lol: :lol:

In all seriousness, the issue isn't fires in new homes.

And probably won't be for many many years given the surplus of single family dwellings.

 

[AegisFPE]

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

3). Yes and on a yearly basis after install. Plan on $50.00 to $100.00 per year per dwelling.

(3) The installing standard and the code that references the standard do not require annual inspections or maintenance by any outside entity other than the owner of the system. (See IRC R313 and NFPA 13D 4.1.1 and A4.1.1)

I'm with Incognito on Item (3); I would expect the water district or health department to require a similar level of scrutiny to that currently practiced with BFP for lawn sprinkler systems, and require annual inspections.

As for Item (1), Washington State has a special sprinkler contractor license, but homeowners are exempt from work they perform in their own home. So, technically a homeowner could work on their own system (just like they can do their own electrical or plumbing, etc); where they get the parts, now that's another question.

On that note, in the case of Item (4), the hardware store should still carry PVC caps and glue, as well as 1/2-inch threaded brass plugs, so should you desire to "fix" your system, you could disable it for a pretty low cost.

My next home will have a sprinkler system installed by choice. If I don't do it until 2011 then it will be installed as mandated by State adopted codes.

:? Then it's not a choice.

Really, what's the big deal?

I am not looking forward to being required to have grab bars in every bathroom in my home and for stairs to no longer be permitted. Based on the annual toll on human life, 1 in 3 over the age of 65 who will experience "a fall," something must be done to address the cost of falls. Where is the public education campaign with a "Learn not to Fall" trailer informing people of the benefits of installing grab bars?

If an individual is more likely to be a victim of a fall than a victim of a fire, and we can keep even one more person from falling, wouldn't that be worth it?

Even if someone living in the home is not aged, an aged person could visit, or an aged person may be living there in the future. (This is similar to the NEC justification for the new mandate for tamper-resistant receptacles.)

Now that we've got sprinklers and grab bars, the next step, pardon the pun, is to eliminate stairs. Homes should be only one level or provided with elevator access or exterior grade access. Homes will be more expensive to build with an elevator? Well, that all depends on the jurisdiction, the type of elevator, plenty of room for debate on that. Besides, homes with elevators are more desirable, so it will actually increase the value of the home. (wait, this sounds eerily familiar!)

It's my freedom; it's a really big deal.

 

[beach]

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Elevator+fire=not good

 

[kilitact]

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

AegisFPE; Excellent post.

 

[AegisFPE]

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Elevator+fire=not good

Please recognize that the reference to reducing the incidence of injurious or fatal falls by eliminating stairs was intended to be tongue-in-cheek (as opposed to foot-in-mouth).I did not intend to suggest that elevators should be used to replace stairs, though this would be a good discussion (this is now code in 2009 IBC Section 3008.4). To that end, please visit the Elevator thread to discuss occupant evacuation elevators.

The example of prohibiting stairs in new construction in order to address a life-safety issue was intended to be an extreme proposition, to try to point to a condition where most of us (it would not surprise me if there are some "no stair" people out there) would say, "Now the code has gone too far."

As for the grab bars in every bathroom, at the rate regulation is expanding, this does not seem too extreme. I guess I could try to grout the holes in the tiled walls after I remove the bars.

Back to the topic at hand:

Are there many good reasons to install RFSS? Yes.

Does this mean they should be mandatory? No.

 

[brudgers]

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Mortality from falls is many times that of fires.

It's a significant cause of death among those over 60.

 

[Mule]

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Even if I had a fire suppression system installed in my house I wouldn't die from the fire........I'd die from drowning! When I go to sleep I'M ASLEEP! The old mouth is open.....snoring away !!! All the water would go in my mouth and I'd be a drowning victim!!

 

[Architect1281]

FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

Date of Construction 1925

COmment edit added 2-14

Just one more incidence of the darn computer doing what you tell it to do

instead of what you want it to do

this was meant to be a comment reply to

"reasons for sprinklers" .... thread below

my point being that for all the info available

why not indicate date of construction when reporting incident

of death related single family fire.

MY suspicion is that it is missing because it may tend to show

Homes constructed to Modern (post 60's to 70's CABO type) codes

proper western / platform frame with fire stops and hardwire detection

sysytmes would indicate a LOW incidence rate ??

Just a guess

 

[FM William Burns]

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

Changes to their structured reporting have been deferred to January 2011. Please forward all comment desires to have this “Age of Structure” measuring field added to their reporting system via the Contact in upper right tool bar:

http://nfirs.fema.gov/

They won’t make any reporting changes unless jurisdictions and users of the reporting feel its necessary as some of us do.

 

[incognito]

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

Architect1281,

The fire statistics reflect exactly what the fire industry want them to reflect. To include the year of construction would clearly reflect how unnecessary RFS's are in new homes. I might be convinced that RFS's are necessary if the following questions could/would be answered;

1). How many new homes were constructed in the last 30 years

2). Of those homes constructed in the last 30 years how many fire related deaths have occurred in those homes.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer because the answer will not support RFS installation. But just for kicks I will start with my community. Average of 70 new home starts each year for last 30 years for a total of 2100 homes. In those homes their have been ZERO deaths related to fire.

 

[fatboy]

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

The newest home fire that had a fire related death in my memory was about 10-12 years ago, a home that was probably built in the early 60's. No smoke detection at all.

 

[TJacobs]

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

The newest home fire that had a fire related death in my memory was about 10-12 years ago, a home that was probably built in the early 60's. No smoke detection at all.

The age of the building should have no bearing on the presence of or operation of smoke detection after 40 years of their availability, other than the power source.

 

[fatboy]

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

The OP is interested in fire related deaths vs. age of structure, I was commenting on the age of the structure. I was only adding a comment that there had been no aftermarket installation of SD's.

 

[brudgers]

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

The newest home fire that had a fire related death in my memory was about 10-12 years ago, a home that was probably built in the early 60's. No smoke detection at all.

The age of the building should have no bearing on the presence of or operation of smoke detection after 40 years of their availability, other than the power source.

Smoke detectors loose efficacy over time. They need to be replaced periodically. Age of the structure is definitely relevant.

 

[FM William Burns]

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

Some still fail to get it..........the age of the structure has very little to do with the majority of fires in residential dwellings. Granted there is roughly a mean score of 19% of fires that occur with heating (portable, fixed/stationary) but the leading causes of fires in the residential dwelling are Careless Cooking and Smoking 1978 to 2007.

The death/loss rates are attributed human behavior and what causes the fire not the structure itself, hence the argument is of little value as to the cause of the fire.

The only means by which it holds validity is the socioeconomic factor where as civilians who reside in old homes (non historic) typically share a lower socioeconomic rating and thus are more prone to suffer from human behavior characteristics contributing to the leading causes (i.e. careless cooking, altering heating systems, smoking, improper storage of combustibles etc.).

I will not go into the historical arguments associated to why homes become aged homes and the needs for residential sprinklers but will close with here is the information available and make your own informed and educated opinion:

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/reports/fius.shtm

 

[brudgers]

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

As I understand the statistics on residential fires, although cooking accounts for a high percentage of dwelling fires it constitutes a much lower percentage of fires causing significant injuries and fatalities.

Conversely, smoking causes a low percentage of total fires but a high percentage of fatal fires.

Over time, I believe that many home sprinkler systems will be turned off in colder climates where bursting pipes are an issue.

One of the underlying assumptions of residential sprinklers is that people will continue to heat inefficiently.

 

[TJacobs]

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

The argument that the anti-sprinkler lobby uses of age of buildings could be said for any code cycle:

"[insert new code section or code change here] will only effect new homes so it won't solve [insert safety issue here] in existing homes, so there is no [insert safety issue here]." Cite phony statistics to prove there is no [insert safety issue here].

Therefore, because we have millions of existing homes we should never improve the code. Save a lot of money in hearings, travel, meals, lodging, publishing, etc. Everything is wonderful... :roll: