Re: Automatic fire sprinklers

[nick markowitz <nmarkowitz@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jan 15, 2:06=A0am, DD_BobK <rkaza...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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 fe=
w
> > > 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 un=
it
> > > 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-
>
> Now to consider the economic costs of fire sprinklers in new
> construction.
>
> Before the "Great Housing Boom & Bust", the US built about 500,000 new
> homes per year.
>
> At $5k to $10k per house for fire sprinklers we're talking about $2.5
> billion to $5 billion per year.
> Yes, the cost is financed over 30 years
> but it is still capital ( the money was borrowed, someone loaned it)
> that could be applied to other uses in society.
>
> According to the CDC numbers ~2500 people are killed in house fires in
> the US every year.
> Most people live in the "old homes", so how many of these 2500 people
> will be saved by this switch in new construction?
>
> So what is the cost per life saved?
>
> btw good luck suing the state of California for "wrong death" because
> a bridge or freeway falls on someone.
> The number of people killed by freeways & bridges over time is
> vanishingly small.
>
> Spending money on "low return" so called "life saving" schemes is the
> real tragedy.
>
> Technology like smoke detectors is way more cost effective, as are
> other potential ideas.
>
> Do you think that air bags are a good thing? =A0And cost effective?
>
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/25466.php
>
> cheers
> Bob

$10,000. may seem like no big deal to those who can afford a new home
your right they will spend 40k on a kitchen but what you are
effectively doing is killing the ability to obtain a lower end house
they are now out of range for exactly the people who need the
protection in the first place instead of being able to afford a home
they must settle for an old home or trailer home   with all its
problems instead of possibly knocking down an old home and rebuilding
and living in a safe new home.
like I said what have we been doing to protect those in older homes
when it comes to affordable options to protect them  jack Shit.
Habitat for humanity has to cut down how many homes they can build
every year because of all the new requirements.
so 3- 5 family's each year in a city which has habitat which would
have had a safe new home do not.
Check the stats on how many low end new homes have been built since
ICC went into effect in many states.