And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?

[The Other Mike]

and surface fit all pipework to the ceilings.

Of course you would need to supply a hacksaw...

[Andy Cap]

Don't worry. Chip pans in the home are going to banned under the planned 'Limitation of individual calorie intake to limit obesity' regulation.

Andy C

[Roger Mills]

cottages[1] used to get torched - don't know whether they still do.

[1] Was it Not-the-nine-o'clock-news that parodied the NCB advert? "Come home to a living fire. Buy a cottage in Wales!"

[Dave Liquorice]

Not normally. Ones near the heat source, thus already near to the point of trigger, may also go off due to the shock through the water/pipe work when one does go off.

Kitchens shouldn't have "smoke" detectors they should have heat (ie fixed temp) or rate of rise detectors.

Quite, or tall box or bit of furniture.

Presumably there would be a valve feeding the sprinkler system but this would have to be locked to stop numpties turning it off(*) and the builders would no doubt place it in an "accessable" position like they do the main water stop c*ck.

(*) Or not so numpties moving large objects about and not wanting to risk biffing one accidentally. Then of course they would forget to turn it back on...

[Robin]

I think you have overlooked that a "qaly" is a year, not a life so you need to multiply by average life expectancy of those saved. And NICE now use £20~30,000:

So it works out around the same as the DfT figures - not surprisingly as officials do try to maintain a degree of consistency on such things (despite the pressures on their political masters to jerk knees when the media are baying).

[Martin Brown]

The sums don't add up though. At £6m per life saved there are far better ways to keep people safer in their own homes. DIYers feature high among the casualty list for self inflicted injuries for instance.

Fire alarms are very cheap and if the objective is to save lives then

*they* should be the first priority. Or innovative alarms that use cell phone technology to call for help if a fire is detected. Teaching people to close doors downstairs at night would go a long way towards controlling the risk by slowing the spread of fire and smoke.

Sprinklers in a domestic setting will just lead to a false sense of security unless they are regularly maintained. It isn't unreasonable to require every household to own and maintain a current CO2 or dry powder extinguisher for instance. Local councils could provide basic fire training as beginners aim too high missing the root of the flames.

Anyone who has been on a serious fire safety course has a pretty good feel for how fire behaves in the large. Untrained people tend to get themselves into big trouble - especially if a flashover occurs.

I was taught that water based extinguishers were mostly useful for breaking down locked doors. The fire brigade do a nice demo of how not to tackle a kitchen chip pan fire in mobile vans before they show how to do it right. These days because of health and safety they have to tell people to just close the door and ring 999 for expert help.

[whisky-dave]

I'd have thought insurance companies will make money from anything whether they work or not. Bit like car insurance.... if you're unemployed you're a greater risk because you have the time to drive around looking for a job, but someone in employment that has to get from A-B in a fixed time usually twice a day is less of a risk.

I wonder if such a sprinkler would have savde the six children from the recent fire.

[Nightjar]

The Fire Protection Association suggest a design flow rate of 60l/min for a domestic installation. It would be normal to supply a sprinkler system from stored water, in case the mains supply is, for some reason, not available when the sprinkler system is needed.

Sprinkler systems usually activate a local alarm and can send a signal to a remote location, if that is specified in the design. However, you can also have a limit set on the total volume of water released, either with flow measuring devices linked to valves or simply by having a storage tank that does not automatically refill.

The frames around the glass bulb are generally very strong and you can also get flush fitting spray heads.

Colin Bignell

[NT]

I find it hard to believe that metal cladding over almost all wiring is remotely cost effective.

NT

[John Rumm]

[dennis]

on a petrol fire, not likely. Anyway the murderer would be able to disable the sprinklers.

[djc]

Or a vandal burglars?

[ARWadsworth]

> Water on a petrol fire, not likely.

Do you have proof of that?

Or have you just found the parents guilty without reading or knowing any facts?

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

Indeed so, and a slight bit of research shows the insurance companies in the US were convinced of their efficacy from an early stage. Amusingly, a customer of mine approached his insco when I offered to fit sprinklers - no, they said, it won't make any difference to your premiums. Total crap attitude.

[Pete Shew]

But the owners probably turn off the water when they are not there to avoid flooding due to pipe bursts. No water, no sprinklers.

[Andrew May]

There is a dedicated storage tank.

[Robin]

> Water on a petrol fire, not likely.

Are you *sure* that comment is safe given the rather more robust approach being taken to comments which are prejudicial to a fair trial?

[ARWadsworth]

>

And our dennis could actually do jury sevice.

That scares me.

[dennis]

>>> Water on a petrol fire, not likely.

Perfectly safe, and there is no mention of who the murder may be.

It wont prejudice ARW anyway as he is not a fit person to serve on a jury.

[ARWadsworth]

> >

So you are saying someone pouring petrol through a letter box is able to turn off the sprinkler system?

People would get a fairer trial with me on the jury than a pillock like you.