On Sep 18, 10:00*am, Eric in North TX wrote:
On Sep 18, 7:04*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

"State and local officials are now wrestling over whether to adopt building
codes that would require sprinklers in every new home and townhome starting
in 2011 amid intense lobbying from both sides."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/...ome_sprinklers

I've always been a fan of that plan. I see it as the best solution,
eliminating the response time from the fire department. The downside
would be the water damage from a relatively easy to control fire, but
likely worth the risk. They should be zoned though, no point in
washing down the TV in the living room to control a little fire in the
kitchen. Easy to turn off would be another good feature, auto off
after flames subside for 10 minutes or so. even better, so long as it
had the ability to turn back on if the embers came back to life. Cost
would probably eliminate those desirable features though.

Cost? How about the cost of all the systems that are going to be
installed compared to the number of lives they MIGHT save?
According to the article, 3000 people die each year in fires. I'm
sure some reasonable estimate can be made of how many of them would
actually be saved if there were sprinklers. Certainly it's not
anywhere near the total 3000. Is a sprinkler gonna save someone
smoking in bed by going off from the heat before they are already
dead? I think not.

Now compare how much money would be spent and I'd venture there are
plenty of other things the money could be spent on, like healthcare
for the poor, which would save an order of magnitude more lives. As
the opponents point out, smoke detectors are very effective. I'd
like to see statistics on how many of those 3000 deaths had working
smoke detectors.

Lots of theoretical ideas turn out to be nowhere near what they were
supposed to be. One prime example is anti-lock brakes. They were
supposed to drastically reduce traffic fatalities and serious wrecks,
but curiously in practice they have done little if anything.