"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

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


It doesn't, of course, say how many of the casualties in the statistics
for current deaths were in modern houses, and how many were in old, poorly
maintained, overcrowded substandard housing.

From the figures quoted - 36 lives out of a potential 153 - they seem to
expect nearly a quarter of the fires and consequent fatalities to be in
new builds or conversions.
I assume there is the assumption that a sprinkler system will eliminate
*fatal* fires altogether?

Does this mean that new homes are very dangerous, that they expect the
housing stock to increase by about a quarter over the next 9 years, or
that they are optimising the statistics?


Edited to make it slightly clearer.
I note neither of the sprinkler enthusiasts actually tried to answer the
question about how reliable the statistics were.

The obvious point being that the claimed saving of life seems to be quite a
high percentage of all fatal fires, given that the proposal is to only fit
sprinklers in new build (which isn't a massive proportion of the total
housing stock at the moment) and conversions.

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.
[Not even bunny]

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")