Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
"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 |
#2
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
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 Sounds like my former town in Illinois. I have seen sprinklers by the furnace and water heaters in some houses. Maybe it was only attached townhouses, but I really don't remember. When we were building the church in the mid 80s, the town wanted the entire building sprinkled. The builder/architect didn't want sprinklers and sited a loophole in the code that said the building could be divided into various parts separated by firewalls. I think the architect just didn't know how to put in the sprinklers and properly hide all the plumbing. There were only 2 sprinklers in the boiler room. Otherwise the building was separated into 5 fire zones. The were fire detectors connected to the fire department in each zone. BTW, he also sited statistics at the time where there were almost no church fires on record and the ones sited were always when the building was not occupied. Since then I've seen many church fires on the news, mostly in the middle of the night, though. I think the sprinklers would have been an improvement over the system that was installed. But this was a commercial building. Homes are another thing. |
#3
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:05:20 -0400, Art Todesco
wrote: 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 Sounds like my former town in Illinois. I have seen sprinklers by the furnace and water heaters in some houses. Maybe it was only attached townhouses, Until I read this, I thought Bub was talking about lawn spnklers, and it was like homeowners associations gone wild and infected the whole state. I thought there was going to be a local law that everyone had to have a green lawn. |
#4
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
mm wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:05:20 -0400, Art Todesco wrote: 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 Sounds like my former town in Illinois. I have seen sprinklers by the furnace and water heaters in some houses. Maybe it was only attached townhouses, Until I read this, I thought Bub was talking about lawn spnklers, and it was like homeowners associations gone wild and infected the whole state. I thought there was going to be a local law that everyone had to have a green lawn. Hmm, now that I think on it... In some places (California comes to mind) fire suppression systems may be appropriate for lawns. It's for the children. |
#5
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
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. |
#6
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
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. |
#7
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
On Sep 18, 10:00 am, Eric in North TX wrote:
" 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. The sprinklers only go off in the area of the fire, not the entire property so that is not a consideration. Homeowner should be able to turn them off, also. In commercial/industrial applications, the shut off valve is usually chained open to prevent accidental or mischievous turning off of the valve. |
#8
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
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. I'm of the opinion there are better solutions: 1. If a city can mandate smoke alarms (at, say, $5.00 each), it could easily mandate fire extinguishers for the same amount. This is a big difference from $1,500.00 to install sprinklers. 2. If response time from the fire department is an issue, beef up the fire department! In my city, our fire department virtually guarantees the first piece of equipment will be on-scene within four minutes of the alarm.* 3. If sprinklers were worth it, insurance companies would be offering discounts to homeowners. Obviously, the insurance people couldn't offer a big enough discount to amortize the cost of sprinklers. ------- * Last year the power went out in my home. After putzing around for about ten minutes, I stepped outside from boredom. Jay-suss! There were FORTY-TWO fire department vehicles on my block! (I've got pictures) Seems there was a spreading kitchen fire in the apartment house across the street. The fire department had ripped down and uprooted the iron-picket fence between the apartment units and the street, had run hoses off to the horizon, and swarmed over the whole shebang like vultures on a dead zebra. There were ladder trucks, ordinary pumper trucks, a truck with ladders that could reach the thirty-seventh floor of this two-story aparment house, a water-spray truck with a boom like a cherry-picker, supervisor vans, ambulances, a cascade unit, special operation's vans, and a HUGE, black, bus-looking vehicle labeled "City of Houston Mobile Command Center" that looked like the thing that carries seniors to the local Indian reservation for a day of gambling. I recognized one of the station numbers on a pumper. It was from the station near the Texas Medical Center, some eight miles away. In addition to the 42 fire trucks in front of my house, a couple of neighbors reported that several pumpers were stationed up to six blocks away with hoses connected to fireplugs ready to race to the scene with more water. There were police cars without number to direct the traffic. News vans. A helicopter. A power company truck (he was the one that cut power to the block). Everything but a steam-powered calliope playing the Star Spangled Banner. I half-expected a hurdy-gurdy man with a monkey and a tin cup. Lordy! On the plus-plus side, I now know what to do if I get lonely. |
#9
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote: 3. If sprinklers were worth it, insurance companies would be offering discounts to homeowners. Obviously, the insurance people couldn't offer a big enough discount to amortize the cost of sprinklers. They do. At least in IN you get 20% off your homeowners insurance. The same as for having an alarm. I would amortize it within 10 years, using your $1500 scenario. -- "Politics should be limited in its scope to war, protection of property, and the occasional precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class." -P.J. O'Rourke |
#10
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
"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. I'm of the opinion there are better solutions: 1. If a city can mandate smoke alarms (at, say, $5.00 each), it could easily mandate fire extinguishers for the same amount. This is a big difference from $1,500.00 to install sprinklers. 2. If response time from the fire department is an issue, beef up the fire department! In my city, our fire department virtually guarantees the first piece of equipment will be on-scene within four minutes of the alarm.* 3. If sprinklers were worth it, insurance companies would be offering discounts to homeowners. Obviously, the insurance people couldn't offer a big enough discount to amortize the cost of sprinklers. ------- * Last year the power went out in my home. After putzing around for about ten minutes, I stepped outside from boredom. Jay-suss! There were FORTY-TWO fire department vehicles on my block! (I've got pictures) Seems there was a spreading kitchen fire in the apartment house across the street. The fire department had ripped down and uprooted the iron-picket fence between the apartment units and the street, had run hoses off to the horizon, and swarmed over the whole shebang like vultures on a dead zebra. There were ladder trucks, ordinary pumper trucks, a truck with ladders that could reach the thirty-seventh floor of this two-story aparment house, a water-spray truck with a boom like a cherry-picker, supervisor vans, ambulances, a cascade unit, special operation's vans, and a HUGE, black, bus-looking vehicle labeled "City of Houston Mobile Command Center" that looked like the thing that carries seniors to the local Indian reservation for a day of gambling. I recognized one of the station numbers on a pumper. It was from the station near the Texas Medical Center, some eight miles away. In addition to the 42 fire trucks in front of my house, a couple of neighbors reported that several pumpers were stationed up to six blocks away with hoses connected to fireplugs ready to race to the scene with more water. There were police cars without number to direct the traffic. News vans. A helicopter. A power company truck (he was the one that cut power to the block). Everything but a steam-powered calliope playing the Star Spangled Banner. I half-expected a hurdy-gurdy man with a monkey and a tin cup. Lordy! On the plus-plus side, I now know what to do if I get lonely. *In NJ the fire extinguisher manufacturers lobbied for mandatory fire extinguishers in every home. So now we are required to have a visible fire extinguisher in or close to our kitchens. When we sell our homes we have to pay for a smoke alarm and fire extinguisher inspection by the town before we can close. I talked to several fire inspectors about this and they all said that they were against this law. Their thinking is that they want people to get out of the house if there is a fire; not stick around and try to put it out. There are many towns here that have all volunteer fire departments. The response time can be as long as 20 minutes. Sprinklers are not a bad idea in a situation like that. I personally feel that the fire rating for walls and ceilings should be increased in certain areas of the house such as the kitchen and garage. |
#11
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory sprinklers
There's a lot of different people out there. Some can whomp
out a fire with an extinguisher, do the salvage and such. Others, it's a virtual death sentence, to go after a fire. I like the smoke detectors, the other things (sprinklers and fire extinguishers) oughta be personal choice. -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "John Grabowski" wrote in message ... *In NJ the fire extinguisher manufacturers lobbied for mandatory fire extinguishers in every home. So now we are required to have a visible fire extinguisher in or close to our kitchens. When we sell our homes we have to pay for a smoke alarm and fire extinguisher inspection by the town before we can close. I talked to several fire inspectors about this and they all said that they were against this law. Their thinking is that they want people to get out of the house if there is a fire; not stick around and try to put it out. There are many towns here that have all volunteer fire departments. The response time can be as long as 20 minutes. Sprinklers are not a bad idea in a situation like that. I personally feel that the fire rating for walls and ceilings should be increased in certain areas of the house such as the kitchen and garage. |
#12
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory sprinklers
In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote: There's a lot of different people out there. Some can whomp out a fire with an extinguisher, do the salvage and such. Others, it's a virtual death sentence, to go after a fire. I like the smoke detectors, the other things (sprinklers and fire extinguishers) oughta be personal choice. Outside of high rises. Anything over about 6 stories should get sprinklers because that is generally about as high as most ladder can get by the time you get setback, etc., out of the way. In the City County Building in Ft. Wayne, because the bldg had a underground garage the largest ladder could only get to the third floor. Guess which the floor the FWFD occupied? -- "Politics should be limited in its scope to war, protection of property, and the occasional precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class." -P.J. O'Rourke |
#13
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
John Grabowski wrote:
There are many towns here that have all volunteer fire departments. The response time can be as long as 20 minutes. Sprinklers are not a bad idea in a situation like that. I personally feel that the fire rating for walls and ceilings should be increased in certain areas of the house such as the kitchen and garage. Not only many towns... When someone tells me there's no private substitute for some governmental entities - like fire and police - I like to point out that there are MANY more private security guards on the job than cops and that 85% of the nation's firefighters are volunteers. |
#14
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debae over mandtory spriklers
Good one! That really puts government in perspective.
-- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "HeyBub" wrote in message m... When someone tells me there's no private substitute for some governmental entities - like fire and police - I like to point out that there are MANY more private security guards on the job than cops and that 85% of the nation's firefighters are volunteers. |
#15
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
Sounds like over kill for a kitchen fire. However, one town
where I used to live. They had a stretch of apartments that were tinder boxes. We in the FD all had heart flutters when we heard "wintergreen way" on the air. -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "HeyBub" wrote in message m... I'm of the opinion there are better solutions: 1. If a city can mandate smoke alarms (at, say, $5.00 each), it could easily mandate fire extinguishers for the same amount. This is a big difference from $1,500.00 to install sprinklers. 2. If response time from the fire department is an issue, beef up the fire department! In my city, our fire department virtually guarantees the first piece of equipment will be on-scene within four minutes of the alarm.* 3. If sprinklers were worth it, insurance companies would be offering discounts to homeowners. Obviously, the insurance people couldn't offer a big enough discount to amortize the cost of sprinklers. ------- * Last year the power went out in my home. After putzing around for about ten minutes, I stepped outside from boredom. Jay-suss! There were FORTY-TWO fire department vehicles on my block! (I've got pictures) Seems there was a spreading kitchen fire in the apartment house across the street. The fire department had ripped down and uprooted the iron-picket fence between the apartment units and the street, had run hoses off to the horizon, and swarmed over the whole shebang like vultures on a dead zebra. There were ladder trucks, ordinary pumper trucks, a truck with ladders that could reach the thirty-seventh floor of this two-story aparment house, a water-spray truck with a boom like a cherry-picker, supervisor vans, ambulances, a cascade unit, special operation's vans, and a HUGE, black, bus-looking vehicle labeled "City of Houston Mobile Command Center" that looked like the thing that carries seniors to the local Indian reservation for a day of gambling. I recognized one of the station numbers on a pumper. It was from the station near the Texas Medical Center, some eight miles away. In addition to the 42 fire trucks in front of my house, a couple of neighbors reported that several pumpers were stationed up to six blocks away with hoses connected to fireplugs ready to race to the scene with more water. There were police cars without number to direct the traffic. News vans. A helicopter. A power company truck (he was the one that cut power to the block). Everything but a steam-powered calliope playing the Star Spangled Banner. I half-expected a hurdy-gurdy man with a monkey and a tin cup. Lordy! On the plus-plus side, I now know what to do if I get lonely. |
#16
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
Your ignorance is astounding. Please let me attempt to
replace ignorance with facts. 1) Generally, sprinklers reduce water and fire damage. Non sprinklered areas, the fire gets a much better "hold". Also, fire departments have been known to do water damage. 2) Each individual head has a low melting point metal, or some other way of activating. The only way to wash the TV is if the sprinkler head gets hot enough for the fusible metal to melt. Like the auto shutoff feature. Good idea. -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "Eric in North TX" wrote in message ... 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. |
#17
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote: Your ignorance is astounding. Please let me attempt to replace ignorance with facts. 1) Generally, sprinklers reduce water and fire damage. Non sprinklered areas, the fire gets a much better "hold". Also, fire departments have been known to do water damage. Sprinklers generally don't let fires get big enuff to bring out the truckies which means vast expanses of roof remain intact (g). 2) Each individual head has a low melting point metal, or some other way of activating. The only way to wash the TV is if the sprinkler head gets hot enough for the fusible metal to melt. The other thing is that only the ones that are near the fire go off. I always get a kick out of the TV when a small fire in a corner kicks off the sprinklers throughout the entire warehouse. About the same as when the car ALWAYS catches fire after a wreck. -- "Politics should be limited in its scope to war, protection of property, and the occasional precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class." -P.J. O'Rourke |
#18
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , "Stormin Mormon" wrote: Your ignorance is astounding. Please let me attempt to replace ignorance with facts. 1) Generally, sprinklers reduce water and fire damage. Non sprinklered areas, the fire gets a much better "hold". Also, fire departments have been known to do water damage. Sprinklers generally don't let fires get big enuff to bring out the truckies which means vast expanses of roof remain intact (g). 2) Each individual head has a low melting point metal, or some other way of activating. The only way to wash the TV is if the sprinkler head gets hot enough for the fusible metal to melt. The other thing is that only the ones that are near the fire go off. I always get a kick out of the TV when a small fire in a corner kicks off the sprinklers throughout the entire warehouse. About the same as when the car ALWAYS catches fire after a wreck. In some sprinkler systems, when one goes off, they all go off. Better to be wet than blown into the ocean. |
#19
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
Please post evidence. I've never seen such.
-- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "HeyBub" wrote in message ... In some sprinkler systems, when one goes off, they all go off. Better to be wet than blown into the ocean. |
#20
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote: In some sprinkler systems, when one goes off, they all go off. Better to be wet than blown into the ocean. None that I ran into in 9 years in the fire service. Although I did not do inspections so did not have to run the numbers, it would seem that if they did all go off, you'd lose too much water pressure and they would be close to useless. -- "Politics should be limited in its scope to war, protection of property, and the occasional precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class." -P.J. O'Rourke |
#21
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message About the same as when the car ALWAYS catches fire after a wreck. But they do. I've seen it on TV so I know its real. |
#22
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
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. Automatic Fire Sprinklers are always zoned. Except in some rather exotic systems, that protect risks containing flash fire or flammable liquid hazards, fire sprinkler heads; which is what the individual discharge nozzles are called; do not open until the temperature at the individual head reaches a set level and remains there long enough to melt the woods metal, or rupture the glass bulb, that hold it closed. In other words ordinary fire sprinkler heads open one at a time in response to the temperature at the head. They can be combined with a heat detector system that will shut off the water when the temperature has dropped to a safe level but such additional controls add markedly to the cost. There are even sprinkler heads that shut themselves when the temperature drops but there cost is quite high compared to the much simpler open and replace type. All fire sprinkler systems are easy to shut off but premature shut down is the primary cause of large losses in sprinklered premises. Many large cities have local laws or ordinances that forbid the closing of sprinkler valves prior to the fire department's permission. -- Tom Horne |
#23
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
Meanwhile, Barney Frank and Newt Gingrich having an argyment
over whether it's "sprikler" or "sprinkler". Barney Frank is quoting Ted Kennedy, on the correct pronunciation. -- Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .. "HeyBub" wrote in message m... "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 |
#24
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
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 The most important thing is that fire sprinklers are nothing like we see on TV and movies. 1) If one sprinkler goes off it does not trigger other sprinklers. 2) The sprinklers emit more of a mist then a "sprinkle" and cause less then 2% water damage than a fire hose in a similar situation. |
#25
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Debate over mandatory spriklers
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:25:51 -0400, Tony
wrote: 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 The most important thing is that fire sprinklers are nothing like we see on TV and movies. 1) If one sprinkler goes off it does not trigger other sprinklers. 2) The sprinklers emit more of a mist then a "sprinkle" and cause less then 2% water damage than a fire hose in a similar situation. Here is a short youtube video from the Fresno CA Fire Department. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqIE5lnsGrw |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
condensing boilers: mandatory? | UK diy | |||
Mandatory periodic tree inspections | UK diy | |||
OT- Mandatory Overtime | Metalworking | |||
Second floor external staircase - mandatory? | Home Repair | |||
SawStop files with GPO/CPSC for mandatory use in US | Woodworking |