On Jan 10, 9:16*pm, Evan wrote:
On Jan 10, 11:51*pm, mleuck wrote:



The issue to me isn't if they work well but that federal, state or
local governments shouldn't be mandating them. if the builder or
customer wants them that's another story

LOL... *And why not ?

If something can save lives why not require it... *Especially
out there in the "heartland of America" where volunteer fire
protection rules the day...

Smoke detectors = required
Carbon monoxide detectors = required

automatic fire sprinklers = requirement coming soon

Not just the public safety folks, but normal people are
starting to see the pattern of people dying in small home
fires as opposed to large multi-unit dwellings which have
had the requirement to be sprinkler protected for a while
now...

How many people were electrocuted in the bathroom
at home before GFCI's became a requirement ?

~~ Evan

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........ it'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 ~$10 billion (& counting) to replace the Oakland
bay Bridge.
Failure of a single span killed one person. ..... one person in 50
years.

If the entire bridge had failed it possibly could have killed a few
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 every residential unit
as well as commercial space?

I wonder if that would be money better spent.

cheers
Bob