Re: Automatic fire sprinklers

[Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@xxxxxxxxx>]

In article <DthYo.140338$UC6.114196@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 "ABLE1" <royboynospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> The problem as I see it is that it will take another 40 years in order to
> get enough stats to decide if the decisions that were made in 2010 were
> actually a good cost effective thing to do.  Right now the decision was
> based mostly on projections of what it would be IF.  I would think it would
> have been by far better if the law would have read like this.
    Not really. There are a number of places (ATL for instance) where
residential sprinklers have been mandated since at least the 80s. For
certain things (high-rises, nursing homes, hospitals and other places
where the fire strategy is "defend in place" we have numbers from the
early 1900s. All of the studies show (1) less damage- water, fire and
smoke (2) NO-- as in  not a single) multiple fatality fires (3) fires
are kept small and often put out before the FD gets there (4). only the
head(s) closest to the fire are set off and (5). the chances of
accidental discharge a vanishingly small (and usually secondary to bad
installation instead of the head itself).
    The question that is really at the center is the risk/benefit
analysis comparing savings with costs of installation and upkeep. That I
don't have a good answer for.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
 ---PJ O'Rourke