Re: Automatic fire sprinklers

[DD_BobK <rkazanjy@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 14, 8:22=A0pm, Evan <evan.news.re...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 1:59=A0am, DD_BobK <rkaza...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Why not?
>
> > Because cost needs to be considered.
>
> > Is the cost of all the systems divided by the number of lives
> > saved ($ / life) a reasonable number.
>
> > Of course, the emotional reaction is........ =A0it's worth it if it
> > saves one life or the life of someone I care about.
>
> > But expenditures like this don't take place in a vacuum....
> > Could the same amount of money be spent per capita and
> > yield a greater number of lives saved?
>
> > California has spent =A0~$10 billion (& counting) to replace the
> > Oakland Bay Bridge. Failure of a single span killed one person.
> > ..... one person in 50 years.
>
> > =A0If the entire bridge had failed it possibly could have killed a few
> > hundred?
>
> > So the taxpayers of CA are saving lives at $25,000,000 per life?
>
> > There are about 2500 deaths & 13,000 injuries per year in the US
> > from house fires. How many of these deaths & injuries might
> > mandatory fire sprinklers prevent?
>
> > At what cost?
>
> > Could we get more bang for our buck elsewhere?
> > How about a mandatory GFCI retrofit in the US =A0every residential unit
> > as well as commercial space?
>
> > I wonder if that would be money better spent.
>
> > cheers
> > Bob
>
> Ok... =A0First off Bob, we are all talking about an additional
> system on a home which will cost all of maybe $10,000
> maximum on an average sized home... =A0If you can not
> afford that cost on a home which will preserve lives and
> the home itself in the future and would rather be spending
> it on a fancier bathroom or kitchen, then you really should
> be living in a high rise tower with small brick lined rooms
> and an elevator ride of two minutes up and down...
>
> It is NOT an immediate out of pocket expense to most
> people as they have a mortgage to build the house in
> the first place...
>
> Second, fighting a fire costs a LOT more than the $10,000
> a residential fire suppression system would cost... =A0Think
> of a small town which has four fire apparatus... =A0For a big
> enough fire they would all be at that one house dealing with
> it... =A0That is an awful lot of water being pumped and diesel
> fuel to power the pumps... =A0Now your community may have
> a mutual aid agreement with nearby communities to cover
> the now empty firehouses or to send additional manpower
> to a working fire, but that costs quite a bit of money for
> each truck sent by a neighboring community... =A0Equipment
> and hoses are frequently worn out or damaged in fighting
> fires so that can add to the cost as all of that equipment
> must be replaced for your fire department to be at full
> functioning capacity...
>
> So why shouldn't the government place a tiny portion of
> the burden of the costs of such work on the owner of the
> home by requiring automatic fire sprinklers be installed in
> homes... =A0The fact that it will cost LESS to finish putting
> out any fires which have spread to the attics or roofs of
> fire sprinkler equipped homes and overhaul them AND that
> such systems will SAVE LIVES isn't enough for you,
> you feel that there should be no requirements at all...
>
> As for your Oakland Bay Bridge babbling bull, that bridge
> is older than 50 years... =A0Construction started in 1933,
> and the bridge was modified in 1989 after another span
> collapsed during the Loma Prieta earthquake... Could
> it be that a 70-something year old bridge which has a
> high maintenance cost and a history of span failure
> even AFTER it was structurally upgraded more than 20
> years ago should be replaced to make traveling over
> the Oakland Bay Bridge? =A0You also neglected to
> mention in your "analysis" that 42 people were killed
> on a newer structure which was built starting in 1955
> which totally collapsed in that same area... =A0Yeah,
> the Cypress Street Viaduct killed many people in
> 1989 and it is connected to the Bay Bridge so to say
> that the highway system over in that area is what it
> needs to be safety-wise, you are full of it... =A0So should
> CalTrans just take the risk that another major earthquake
> won't occur and pancake the entire eastern span of the
> Bay Bridge and have a major insurance loss in the
> Billions of dollars range for the structure, never mind the
> wrongful death and property loss claims for the thousands
> of cars and people who were killed when the whole thing
> gave way? =A0Seriously, get a clue... =A0Just because you
> see no logic to something, that doesn't mean that it isn't
> there -- just that you are UNABLE to see it past your
> biases and ignorance...
>
> ~~ Evan

Evan-

What a pleasant reply......my point was, cost of systems (all of them)
vs number of lives saved; that is $ per life saved.

Instead of insults, how about commenting on the numbers.

Instead of $10 billion on a new bridge, how about a less expensive
bridge (less of a showpiece) , safe but more cost effective?

btw I worked on CalTrans research projects for years.  I know the
bridge designers at CalTrans in Sac.
I also know that the politicians had WAY too much influence on the
project, it was not driven by safety & structural engineering.

Instead of overspending on this particular bridge design, how about
another lane on the 5 between LA & SF?
That might save way more lives..... year after year.

Or individual safety upgrades throughout the state; tree removals,
extra guard rails, crash barriers.

My point is...... expenditures do not take place in a vacuum.

Fire sprinklers MIGHT be a wise expenditure but maybe there are other
choices that will save more lives for less money.

cheers
Bob