Mike Barnes wrote
Cash
?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?@?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.? .?.?.?.?.//.com.invalid
wrote
Rod Speed wrote:
Cash wrote
John Rumm wrote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064

As one who over the years has been involved in repairing several fire
damaged dwellings (two with fatalities) [1], I think that sprinklers
in dwellings are a bloody good idea, and is one of those where the
value of fitting them could well far outweigh the costs in lives
saved and reduced injuries.

The real problem with the cost is that only a tiny subset
of houses ever have a fire that sprinklers would help with.

But even with that "minority" it's worth the cost if it saves just one
life!

Would you still say that if the same money could
be used some other way to save *two* lives?

And even if he would, I prefer to make my own choices on how to avoid
ending up with even one corpse due to a serious fire in my house and I have
in fact done just that, for much less money than sprinklers would have cost.

I have in fact never ever had any fire at all, let alone
one that would have triggered a sprinkler, in 40 years.