I "think" his point is this
Rich people buy nice houses and therefore are bad Poor people don't buy nice houses which is also bad Some people know many people who don't sign on to an socialist heath care plan because they aren't sick
I could be wrong
.
My biggest worry we put all these systems in homes which will probably not need them for 30-40 years and will they work when called on? But the real problem is existing housing what has been done to protect those who need it most. How many times in fatal fires no working smoke detectors and the same thing will happen with sprinklers the same people who need them the most will be the ones to turn them off and not maintain them. I wonder how many 100% sprinkled community's over the last 10 years I could walk into and find sprinklers turned off and smokes disabled. how many GFCI and Arc Faults will work???
.
Ya know ..... I think your on to something there.
That all sounds pretty reasonable to me.
That allows us to conclude that there's no difference between rich people and poor people. And since it's ok for the government to pass laws for our own protection .... if a law was passed that required everyone to stay healthy, there'd be no reason for any kind of health care plan ..... at all !
OHMYGOD! Why didn't you think of this before now?
Which is why the requirement for smoke detectors has changed over the years from requiring a smoke detector to requiring
*hardwired* smoke detectors...Batteries seem to be something that people are unable to replace in life safety devices even if they are still *good* twice a year to ensure that the things will actually work when they are needed... Hence the evolution of the requirement...
As far as having sprinkler systems disabled in any building that requires such systems for permitting and occupancy -- well that is a totally different matter, that was an intentional act to disable the sprinkler system made by someone who deliberately chose to do so... Better hope no one ever dies in a home which is mandated to be protected by a sprinkler system... Those deaths would no longer be classified as "Accidental: Fire" and would be "Homicide: Criminal Negligence"... Depending on what your state laws are you could be up for a manslaughter charge and do 10 to 15 years or up on murder charges and do 25 to life for turning off a required life safety device...
~~ Evan
...
I recall the early 90's when Texas enacted a number of strict fire codes which resulted in a lot of homes that could have easily had basic fire protection but didn't because of the extra cost involved. Mandatory sprinkler systems sounds nice to a bureaucrat, they never have to deal with the aftermath
Even better, say your sprinkler system has an "accident" resulting in flood damage and the customer sues you when it may not be your fault. The end result of these "mandatory" safety laws is usually more lawsuits
The town where a friend of mine built a house 15+ years ago required sprinklers. The pipes ran through an unheated basement. I asked about freezing and he said that because the pipes ran through the basement it wasn't just water in the pipes, it's water plus antifreeze. Obviously if there's a fire and the antifreeze all gets sprayed they'd have to refresh the system with new antifreeze.
It's a pretty small cost to add sprinklers to new construction. Fires are rare but they're expensive as hell. And you can rebuild a house; you can't rebuild a burned-to-death person.
I've lived through one fire, in an apartment building. Two blocks from the firehouse and we got everyone out okay (my neighbor and I ran around banging on doors until it got too scary to stay). I'd have loved to have sprinklers (the building was from 1921 and didn't even have closed-off staircases).
I asked an office building fire safety director once what maintenance was required for the paraffin sprinkler heads and he said he couldn't recall a case of a malfunction. It's a pretty simple device and there are millions upon millions of them installed. I've never gotten wet working inside an office or walking into a store.
As far as the Constitution, it does state that anything not specifically addressed in it is relegated to the states, so there's nothing unconstitutional about Pennsylvania passing such a law, unless of course the state Constitution prohibits it. Rather doubtful.
Copyright 2011 by Shaun Eli. All rights reserved.
You were the one spouting numbers... 20 per year... I am not going to guess, it is up to you to back your statistics and conclusion reached from a very shaky and recent data set to say that the requirements for GFCI's in bathrooms and other damp locations had NO effect at all on the number of fatalities... All I claimed was that such things would not be required if there was not a trend of accidents...
You want to use statistics you need to use them properly and have access to more than a few years of data to make such concrete claims...
Its all on you Smitty... Either find those numbers going back say to the time when homes were mostly electrified or admit you only looked up the most recent numbers which BEST supported your statements and move on...
~~ Evan
Perhaps you do not know how to read the Constitution nor how to interpret what is written there and how the Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted and clarified the document in the ensuing 223 years since it was written by the founding fathers and architects of our country...
The fact that you can *buy* anything is at the discretion of the US Congress which has the sole authority on the regulation of Commerce in the United States...
Article I, § 8:
-- "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
(Commonly referred to as the "Commerce Clause")
-- "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;"
-- "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
(Commonly referred to as the "Necessary and Proper Clause")
So it is written there, just not in the terms which you seem to need it to be so that you can clearly understand it I guess...
Unless you are building a log cabin using only locally available materials (meaning you chopped down the logs yourself) you are engaging in and benefiting from interstate commerce to procure your supplies and materials which had to move across state lines to arrive at the local store from which you purchased them... THAT gives Congress the power to decide on how those materials should be sold and used... Or to require any safety laws it feels are necessary...
It is my opinion that in the next few coming generations of the National Building Code that automatic fire sprinklers will soon be a nationwide requirement...
Commerce Clause might not work for 'intra' state commerce. see Montana gun case. Many states have signed onto the case. States contend if your commerce is all done in one state and purchases come from that same state you are intra state and out of the reach of the fed. this would be one way for the states to reign in the out of control federal govt..
Well Stormy let's make it a little closer to home for you. I vote no on nanny hvac suppliers. If I want to buy a hvac system they shouldn't refuse to sell me one just because I'm a homeowner.
? "Shaun Eli" wrote .>
I'd like to see if they really save lives. How many people are killed by smoke inhalation before a sprinkler would activate? I'm thinking of a smoldering sofa or mattress that can kill you long before a flame gets hot enough to set off a sprinkler head. In the case of a heater fires, it may make a difference as the fire is in another area of the house.
As for property damage, it does save fire damage, but can replace it with water damage.
I'm not for or against, I just want to see more facts before deciding.
According to the NFPA records there has never been a multiple fatality 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. This includes hotels, nursing homes, hospitals, etc., in addition to residences.
to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
I've seen multiple fatality fires just here in the local news in NC so something is wrong with your source.
is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
The smoking in bed is one scenario where a sprinkler would not save your life due to smoke inhalation. The no multi fatality with sprinklers is accurate but the wording is 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 UL 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.
e is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
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?
? "nick markowitz" wrote
Once it became a blaze though, it could save others if the smoke has not already gotten to them. Smoke detectors are far more important than sprinklers to warn people.
Some 20 years ago I saw a water valve that replaced the one on the feed line to your boiler. In the case of a fire from the boiler, it would activate as a sprinkler. The idea was that many fires start at residential heaters so this would take care of one common source. I never saw it in production though.
A compromise might be to have sprinklers at fireplaces, kitchens, laundry rooms and gas heat/hw. Dryers are common fire starter. Lint plus hot is bad.
is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
James Are you saying that you can identify a specific instance of a multiple fatality fire in a property that is protected by a complete automatic fire sprinkler system. A yes or no answer would be appreciated.
-- Tom Horne
It's not the government that's refusing to sell to you... it's a private company.
And you being a homeowner may not be the reason they're refusing.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.