• 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

Sprinkler debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter timh
  • Start date Start date
T

timh

Guest
Every other year our Building Dept puts on a Builders Seminar to help educate our contractors. This year we hope to sponsor a debate on the merits of residential sprinklers. I thought it would be very easy to get someone from the "homebuilders Assc. to come and argue against. So far our regional and state associations have blown me off. I have an e-mailed request in with the National Homebuilders Assc. but am not holding breath. I thought it would be real easy since all of our city assembly members will be invited and they will shortly thereafter be voting on weather to adopt the sprinklers along with other code changes.Anybody got any good ideas on who could come and argue against residential sprinklers? I do want to get a strong, well informed debator so the debate remains credible. I should also let everyone know I am in Sitka, AK and all we can help with is hotels and food, no travel assistance. I am running out of time to line someone up, the seminar is scheduled for Oct. 28 &29

thanks Tim
 
TimH,

Wow;

http://sitkaphotos.blogspot.com/

Shoot any outsider that isn't a tourist; and keep this beautiful place out of our mess down here in the lower 48.

A main attraction is the Bishop's house; 200 years plus old; that has been there since Stika was a part of Russia. You don't need no stinking building codes; or sprinklers.

The Building Official should be responsible for maintaining the ambience of that beautiful place.

The NAHB has moved to use another tactic to defeat the sprinker systems. I would think they would have already worked on the State. Maybe you can get a NAHB rep from Anchorage or Seattle.

Wow, what a beautiful place,

Uncle Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Uncle Bob,

We have one of the most restrictive sprinkler codes in the state, more or less if it ain't a R-3 you have to sprinkle it. Believe it or not the National Park Service Sprinkled the Russian Bishops House when they aquired it sevral years ago. It's the niciest retrofit I have ever seen.

We try to avoid the problems from outside, but they still seem to make it here sooner or later.

Tim
 
It really should not be much of a debate. Make the sprinkler advocates answer the following question,

1). Of all the homes in Sitka that were built in the last 30 years, how many have had a fire related death occur?

Watch them try to not answer the question. They will come up with all kinds of BS excuses why that info is not relevant. The only reason it isn't "relevant" to them is that the answer typically blows them out of the water. Follow the money. The sprinkler industry stands to turn a profit in the BILLIONS every year from the installation of residential sprinklers. Nothing but a scam.
 
Looks like they need a fire official out there in about eight years who understands the bigger picture and why we all serve :)

Indeed a beautiful place and hopefully you "all" can keep it that way.
 
I attended a great sprinkler info session last year in Philly. It was done by a Fire Chief from TN. The co goes all over for these. I will did up the info for you.
 
Yeah his material is great if you are looking for biased info in favor of residential fire sprinklers. Nevermind that what has occurred in the last 30 years is a clear indication that fire sprinklers will have virtually no effect on deaths in dwellings for several generations.
 
incognito said:
Yeah his material is great if you are looking for biased info in favor of residential fire sprinklers. Nevermind that what has occurred in the last 30 years is a clear indication that fire sprinklers will have virtually no effect on deaths in dwellings for several generations.
Click to expand...
I like the sprinklers because as a volunteer fire fighter, there may be one day i need to get in that window to help someone out. That sprinkler head is gonna help keep my flesh from peeling off. That's it, really. Save the house, maybe. Protect your fire fighters and allow them to do their jobs? PRICELESS.
 
Why is it so difficult for those in favor of sprinklers to answer a simple question?

1). Of all the homes in your jurisdiction that were built in the last 30 years, how many have had a fire related death occur?

I am not interested in your imaginery events of may/if something happens. What are you afraid of? I know what the answer is in my jurisdiction and I suspect it will be much the same every where else. In my jurisdiction the answer is a big zero, zilch, nada. If not for outright scare tactics and desperate what if/or when scenarios the pro-sprinkler advocates would have nothing.
 
Jurisdiction – (1) 2800 s.f. home built in 1986. Incident in 1999!

District/Coverage Area – (2) 1600 s.f. home built in 1982. Incident in 2002!

1450 s.f. mfg home built in 1994. Incident in 1998!



With respect to families; I will not post the specifics but it does happen and if NFIRS (National Fire Incident Reporting System) had a field for “age of structure” these statistics would be available for scrutiny.
 
incognito: I had promised myself I would not post on sprinkler issues. I have voted against them and personally don't see the need. I have witnessed first hand the scare tactics use by the industry to force them in. That being said, I have tried to maintain an objective out look on the impact, cost, need and the statistical issues you raise. I have also taken on an ahj that has required them for ten years. Interesting twist for me being opposed and then having to review and inspect 13d systems. Did I sell out? NO! It is a law which I must enforce to the best of my ability.

Sprinklers have or will become common place as we move forward. I agree, that a local ahj has the right to enforce the requirement or not. These are all separate issues and should remain such. I don't believe anyone can argue that people don't die in fires. Even with smoke detectors people die. Most often when detectors are not working. Older housing stock I don't believe is a fair target for comparing what 13d sprinklers will do or not do. I feel that it will take 30 years to have any real facts. We need to get quite a bit of the new housing stock built with sprinklers to have a real handle. We can not just look at Scottsdale's as, oh that is the bench mark.

In your ahj the answer is NO. That's great! I believe as professionals we need to look at the big picture. First, being the way we construct building to day. I had a lighting strike that burned a new home under construction down to the foundation in less then 15 min. An eye opener!

Much to be considered in this sprinkle or not case. No one likes change, but when it comes we must deal with it. If there was a chance to turn the sprinkler bus around I would lead the charge. Only time will tell if we have chosen the right path. Maybe only one child will be saved, or one grandmother, or perhaps one firefighter because of a 13d system. When that happens we must weight the value. This is and has been a great topic regarding sprinklers. Time will tells us as it always does.
 
Thank you FMWB. I would not ask for you to be overly specific for the reason you mentioned. Were these all in the same jurisdiction? I am just a little confused by your answer format. Obviously it doesn't take much :) .

RJJ; I try not to fall prey to the emotionalism that goes with "if we only save one child, elderly person or firefighter it is worth it". If the firefighters/EMT actually believed this they would be promoting a reduction of speed limits across the board by 50%. Such a reduction would result in saving over 30,000 lives a year and many more life altering injuries. Not only that, the benefits would be immediate---not decades into the future.
 
Well with the exception of "Incognito" (Why don't you come on up and debate) it looks like nobody really knows of anyone that truely wants to argue (debate) the lack of merits of residential sprinklers systems. I find it amazing the amount of money and effort put into the sprinkler fight by the homebuilders and yet they all run for cover when asked to debate.

Looks like our NFPA expert is just going to have to debate with himself. Maybe I should set things up as if it was a debate and just put a sign up on the homebuilders podium "no show". Would make for a nice photo op.
 
timh,

i hear it gets cold in alaska! anti-freeze solutions are a must in residential sprinkler systems i would imagine. did you hear that the anti freeze solution can be an accelerant and can cause explosions? NFPA will be prohibiting anti freeze in residential systems. stay tuned sprinkler fans in cold climates.
 
Incognito: Two within coverage area, one within city limits!

Pwood: The TIA to MFPA 13 is already out effective 8/25/10. It's posted in RF Codes and Commercial F Codes for viewing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FM William Burns said:
Incognito: Two within coverage area, one within city limits!Pwood: The TIA to MFPA 13 is already out effective 8/25/10. It's posted in RF Codes and Commercial F Codes for viewing.
Click to expand...
fm,

MFPA? :mrgreen:
 
FMWB,

Why would they not collect this info? Anytime you make a significant addition to the code, such as adding smoke detectors, wouldn't you want to have accurate data as to their effectiveness? If over the next 10, 15, or 20 years if we do not see a significant reduction in fire related deaths, are we to assume that fire sprinklers are ineffective?
 
California Building Industry Association

1215 K Street, Suite 1200

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 443-7933

Fax: (916) 443-1960

Fire Marshal Issues Bulletin Aimed at Reducing Sprinkler CostsIn response to a CBIA request, the Office of the State Fire Marshal has issued an Information Bulletin designed to help reduce compliance costs associated with the new national sprinkler mandate that takes effect Jan. 1, 2011.

In some jurisdictions, water purveyors have indicated concern that the installation of residential sprinklers might prompt the need for a larger water meter or a secondary water meter, significantly increasing sprinkler installation costs. However, the State Fire Marshal has clarified that a “domestic water shutoff valve” may be used, effectively negating the need for any additional water demand by the home in the event of a fire.

As the name implies, the (inexpensive) domestic shutoff valve automatically shuts off the domestic water supply and diverts the water supply to the sprinkler system in the rare event of sprinkler activation.

While the final call will remain with the local water purveyor, the State Fire Marshal bulletin already is providing a level of comfort to some purveyors as the state readies for the implementation of the new sprinkler mandate.

• Read the bulletin

http://www.cbia.org/go/cbia/?LinkServID=06F6F84B-1413-41E2-807662D3C952F48E&showMeta=0

http://www.cbia.org/go/cbia/?LinkServID=06F6F84B-1413-41E2-807662D3C952F48E&showMeta=0
 
Igcognito: Sorry, didn't know you replied again since I have not been here for a while. That data is not an import field in the reporting fields in the two states I've worked in. It is however in the standard used to create the NFIRS reporting system (NFPA 901). The detection data fields are in the previously referenced state reporting systems though.
 
incognito said:
Why is it so difficult for those in favor of sprinklers to answer a simple question? 1). Of all the homes in your jurisdiction that were built in the last 30 years, how many have had a fire related death occur? Seven over the course of the past 11 years

I am not interested in your imaginery events of may/if something happens.
Click to expand...
Not imaginary: in the 21 years I have been both a career and volunteer firefighter (different jurisdictions than where I am now a code official) I have never, not once, ever, dragged a body out of, or had to help the coroner's office package up a dead body inside a sprinklered dwelling. I have, however, dragged 4 bodies out of a non-sprinklered dwelling, and have helped the coroner's office package up and remove about a half-dozen more.The builders have to give and take a little more. If they want to use lightweight wood frame construction, they need to sprinkler it. If they don't want to sprinkler, then they need to use traditional dimensional lumber building methods. This will help any occupants gain enough time to get out, or to allow rescuers to get in and remove.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top