Re: Automatic fire sprinklers

[jamesgangnc <jamesgangnc@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 12, 11:50=A0am, nick markowitz <nmarkow...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 11:31=A0am, jamesgangnc <jamesgan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 10:25=A0am, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > In article <5qednQCgQrTCWbDQnZ2dnUVZ_oidn...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > =A0"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > ?
> > > > "Shaun Eli" <missingch...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote .>
> > > > > It's a pretty small cost to add sprinklers to new construction. F=
ires
> > > > > are rare but they're expensive as hell. And you can rebuild a hou=
se;
> > > > > you can't rebuild a burned-to-death person.
>
> > > > I'd like to see if they really save lives. =A0How many people are k=
illed by
> > > > smoke inhalation before a sprinkler would activate? =A0I'm thinking=
 of a
> > > > smoldering sofa or mattress that can kill you long before a flame g=
ets hot
> > > > enough to set off a sprinkler head. =A0 In the case of a heater fir=
es, it may
> > > > make a difference as the fire is in another area of the house.
>
> > > =A0 According to the NFPA records there has never been a multiple fat=
ality
> > > fire in the US. Their records go back to around 1900. Most of the
> > > fatalities have been things like smoking in bed where the smoker was
> > > cooked, but nobody else, which would seem to answer your question. Th=
is
> > > includes hotels, nursing homes, hospitals, etc., in addition to
> > > residences.
>
> > > > As for property damage, it does save fire damage, but can replace i=
t with
> > > > water damage.
>
> > > > I'm not for or against, I just want to see more facts before decidi=
ng.
>
> > > --
> > > "Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tre=
e is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
> > > =A0---PJ O'Rourke
>
> > I've seen multiple fatality fires just here in the local news in NC so
> > something is wrong with your source.
>
> The smoking in bed is one scenario where a sprinkler would not save
> your life due to smoke inhalation.
> The no multi fatality =A0with sprinklers is accurate =A0but the wording i=
s
> when a system has been properly maintained and installed.
>
> Why is there no single sprinkler head easy install kit for existing
> homes where they could be easily attached to an existing water source
> in a basement area where pipes are usual very accessible and where
> many fires start.
> and could well serve to suppress a fire. At one time a saw a small
> garden hose kit with single head you attached to back of washer and
> then hanged on ceiling.
> Want to know why its the same asses who make the rules =A0UL etc who put
> so many restrictions on technology no one wants to make one unless its
> approved by some group to help limit law suits.
>
> UL, ICC and NFPA are not your friend when you realize all the goings
> on in the background.
>
> just like Arc fault breakers why make them unless you can get some
> agency to mandate them because most people given the chance would not
> use them making the cost high.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In your prior post you simply said "there has been no multiple fire
fatality".  You did not say "there has been no multiple fire fatality
when sprinklers where installed" which I'm now thinking it what you
meant?