On Jan 13, 7:25*pm, Jim wrote:
On Jan 12, 9:39*pm, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
I wonder if WD-40 the lubricant is used to maintain
sprinkler systems? Or, to maintain guns used by
criminals?

I have coined an expression you can use. Banning
law abiding people from owning guns is like saying
"There is a fox among the chickens. We'd better
shoot our dog." Results work out about the same,
too.

--
Christopher A. Young

I like that.

Thanks, I just may use that when the opportunity presents itself.

Just got word from local FM on new rules to install sprinklers in
Allegheny County Pa.
1- registered master plumber only can install
2- certified flow test
3- plan by design professional that means architect or engineer
4- several water company's will not t off main line you will have to
install a separate water line to house
5- we have major pressure issues her that means pumps and tanks and
fire alarm monitoring of system
yea they can do this all for $3500.00 average WTF who came up with
that assigned figure it will be at least twice that in this county and
that's if pumps etc not involved.
needless to say new housing starts are totally flat in this county for
spring and 84 lumber located in this state just announced more store
closings and layoffs and closing of a truss manufacturing plant.

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:01:03 -0800 (PST), nick markowitz
wrote:

On Jan 13, 7:25*pm, Jim wrote:
On Jan 12, 9:39*pm, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
I wonder if WD-40 the lubricant is used to maintain
sprinkler systems? Or, to maintain guns used by
criminals?

I have coined an expression you can use. Banning
law abiding people from owning guns is like saying
"There is a fox among the chickens. We'd better
shoot our dog." Results work out about the same,
too.

--
Christopher A. Young

I like that.

Thanks, I just may use that when the opportunity presents itself.

Just got word from local FM on new rules to install sprinklers in
Allegheny County Pa.
1- registered master plumber only can install
2- certified flow test
3- plan by design professional that means architect or engineer
4- several water company's will not t off main line you will have to
install a separate water line to house
5- we have major pressure issues her that means pumps and tanks and
fire alarm monitoring of system
yea they can do this all for $3500.00 average WTF who came up with
that assigned figure it will be at least twice that in this county and
that's if pumps etc not involved.

A VFW I used to frequent was going to have to install a sprinkler system, at a
cost of over $100K. It's a one-story building, with a zillion windows and
doors, any one of which could be used in an instant. ...and no one sleeps
there.

needless to say new housing starts are totally flat in this county for
spring and 84 lumber located in this state just announced more store
closings and layoffs and closing of a truss manufacturing plant.

nick markowitz wrote:

Just got word from local FM on new rules to install sprinklers in
Allegheny County Pa.
1- registered master plumber only can install
2- certified flow test
3- plan by design professional that means architect or engineer
4- several water company's will not t off main line you will have to
install a separate water line to house
5- we have major pressure issues her that means pumps and tanks and
fire alarm monitoring of system
yea they can do this all for $3500.00 average WTF who came up with
that assigned figure it will be at least twice that in this county and
that's if pumps etc not involved.
needless to say new housing starts are totally flat in this county for
spring and 84 lumber located in this state just announced more store
closings and layoffs and closing of a truss manufacturing plant.

The number of foreclosures will supposedly hit a peak this year.
Article he http://tinyurl.com/4mb9jkb

Sure, with proper credit and remit $47.50 for each usage.
(big smile, here, inserted.)

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jim" wrote in message
...
On Jan 12, 9:39 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
I wonder if WD-40 the lubricant is used to maintain
sprinkler systems? Or, to maintain guns used by
criminals?

I have coined an expression you can use. Banning
law abiding people from owning guns is like saying
"There is a fox among the chickens. We'd better
shoot our dog." Results work out about the same,
too.

--
Christopher A. Young

I like that.

Thanks, I just may use that when the opportunity presents
itself.

nick markowitz wrote:

yea they can do this all for $3500.00 average WTF who came up with
that assigned figure it will be at least twice that in this county and
that's if pumps etc not involved.

About 3 years ago I went through that. Prior to the start of build, builder
swore that $5K would cover the cost of the sprinklers. Mid build, revised
esitmate was $8K. Final cost was $12K.

Why? Only 2 licensed fire supression installers in county, knew they had a good
thing going, wouldn't agree to a binding contract in advance.

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

"Evan" wrote in message
...


Sounds like just more pipes to burst, particularly in a second home.
More
nannyism for the government.


LOL... Sounds like you think you are in an area where public safety
budgets have not been cut yet... It is either raise tax rates even
more
or start cutting even on the essential services like police and
fire...

Some people are always looking for opportunities to whine about the gubmint
whether they have a good reason or not.

Some friends of ours just lost almost everything they own when an electrical
fire in the garage (idiot landlord saving money by having a relative do
electrical work that turned out to be grossly sub-code) spread into the
attic of the attached house before anyone even noticed. If one person
hadn't smelled smoke and awakened the rest of the family.... If I were
building a house I'd happily pay for a fire suppression system, it sure
beats burning to death.

?
"DGDevin" wrote

Some friends of ours just lost almost everything they own when an
electrical fire in the garage (idiot landlord saving money by having a
relative do electrical work that turned out to be grossly sub-code) spread
into the attic of the attached house before anyone even noticed. If one
person hadn't smelled smoke and awakened the rest of the family.... If I
were building a house I'd happily pay for a fire suppression system, it
sure beats burning to death.

The correct answer is to follow the electrical code and prevent the fire.
Your friends though, although greatly inconvenienced, should have no
monetary loss because they have renter's insurance. They did didn't they?

Oh, the smoke detectors should have also alerted them to danger. Why did
they not go off and a person had to smell the smoke? Even if the landlord
did not have them, for $10 you can protect yourself.

On 13/01/2011 4:56 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Jan 13, 7:46 am, nick wrote:
On Jan 12, 11:22 pm, Smitty wrote:

In article
,

wrote:
All I claimed was that such things would not be
required if
there was not a trend of accidents...

Bzzt. Incorrect. GFCIs became law for one reason: Someone who stood to
make tens of millions of dollars selling them lobbied for the law. There
is no trend of accidents.

I have seen GFCI prevent many accidents over the years but I have also
seen them bypassed as well.
where back to the people who get zapped are the ones using frayed
extension cords or cords with grounds cut off and plugged in back
wards etc etc.
Every time you read an electrocution report in any of the trade
magazines the individual has done something to cause the accident.
latest article was on a farm where pressure washer was totally
corroded safety shields off and no ground and gfci bypassed wonder
why some one died.

So exactly what is the "maintenance" on a basic sprinkler system? I'm
asking because I'm installing sprinklers in the garage I'm building.
I ran water pipes off the main cold coming in and I bought some of
those sprinklers with the little expansion glass pieces in the
centers. You certainly can't test tripping one of them because then
you have to replace it.

In our neck of the woods you'd require a back-flow preventer on your
sprinkler system to avoid contamination of the domestic supply. That
has to be inspected annually. Check with your local AHJ regarding any
further requirements. You may be required to interconnect your smoke
alarms to a flow switch. If it's a heated garage and depending on your
location, you may require a low temperature alarm. In fact it might not
be a bad idea to have one anyway and interconnect it to your monitored
security system.

--
Frank Kurz
www.firetechs.net

Re the bridge analogy- did they replace the bridge not only to save
lives but also to have a bridge in operation? If an old bridge falls
down not only do people die but you've got to replace the bridge
anyway, and in the years it takes to do that you've got no bridge.

On Jan 14, 10:54*am, Frank Kurz wrote:
On 13/01/2011 4:56 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:





On Jan 13, 7:46 am, nick *wrote:
On Jan 12, 11:22 pm, Smitty *wrote:

In article
,

* *wrote:
All I claimed was that such things would not be
required if
there was not a trend of accidents...

Bzzt. Incorrect. GFCIs became law for one reason: Someone who stood to
make tens of millions of dollars selling them lobbied for the law. There
is no trend of accidents.

I have seen GFCI prevent many accidents over the years but I have also
seen them bypassed as well.
where back to the people who get zapped are the ones using frayed
extension cords or cords with grounds cut off and plugged in back
wards etc etc.
Every time you read an electrocution report in any of the trade
magazines the individual has done something to cause the accident.
latest article was on a farm where pressure washer was totally
corroded safety shields off and *no ground and gfci bypassed wonder
why some one died.

So exactly what is the "maintenance" on a basic sprinkler system? *I'm
asking because I'm installing sprinklers in the garage I'm building.
I ran water pipes off the main cold coming in and I bought some of
those sprinklers with the little expansion glass pieces in the
centers. *You certainly can't test tripping one of them because then
you have to replace it.

In our neck of the woods you'd require a back-flow preventer on your
sprinkler system to avoid contamination of the domestic supply. *That
has to be inspected annually. *Check with your local AHJ regarding any
further requirements. *You may be required to interconnect your smoke
alarms to a flow switch. *If it's a heated garage and depending on your
location, you may require a low temperature alarm. *In fact it might not
be a bad idea to have one anyway and interconnect it to your monitored
security system.

So, about how many people have any kind of security system
in their house? They're pretty rare here in small-town Midwest.

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton wrote:

So, about how many people have any kind of security system
in their house? They're pretty rare here in small-town Midwest.

Prewires are pretty common in new construction these days. A relative bought an
entry level home a couple of years ago that came with it, as did the last
(somewhat higher level) house I had built. The spinkler system has an
independent bell tied to a flow switch. I added a relay and brought it into the
house alarm.

On Jan 14, 1:59*am, DD_BobK wrote:

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


Ok... First off Bob, we are all talking about an additional
system on a home which will cost all of maybe $10,000
maximum on an average sized home... If you can not
afford that cost on a home which will preserve lives and
the home itself in the future and would rather be spending
it on a fancier bathroom or kitchen, then you really should
be living in a high rise tower with small brick lined rooms
and an elevator ride of two minutes up and down...

It is NOT an immediate out of pocket expense to most
people as they have a mortgage to build the house in
the first place...

Second, fighting a fire costs a LOT more than the $10,000
a residential fire suppression system would cost... Think
of a small town which has four fire apparatus... For a big
enough fire they would all be at that one house dealing with
it... That is an awful lot of water being pumped and diesel
fuel to power the pumps... Now your community may have
a mutual aid agreement with nearby communities to cover
the now empty firehouses or to send additional manpower
to a working fire, but that costs quite a bit of money for
each truck sent by a neighboring community... Equipment
and hoses are frequently worn out or damaged in fighting
fires so that can add to the cost as all of that equipment
must be replaced for your fire department to be at full
functioning capacity...

So why shouldn't the government place a tiny portion of
the burden of the costs of such work on the owner of the
home by requiring automatic fire sprinklers be installed in
homes... The fact that it will cost LESS to finish putting
out any fires which have spread to the attics or roofs of
fire sprinkler equipped homes and overhaul them AND that
such systems will SAVE LIVES isn't enough for you,
you feel that there should be no requirements at all...

As for your Oakland Bay Bridge babbling bull, that bridge
is older than 50 years... Construction started in 1933,
and the bridge was modified in 1989 after another span
collapsed during the Loma Prieta earthquake... Could
it be that a 70-something year old bridge which has a
high maintenance cost and a history of span failure
even AFTER it was structurally upgraded more than 20
years ago should be replaced to make traveling over
the Oakland Bay Bridge? You also neglected to
mention in your "analysis" that 42 people were killed
on a newer structure which was built starting in 1955
which totally collapsed in that same area... Yeah,
the Cypress Street Viaduct killed many people in
1989 and it is connected to the Bay Bridge so to say
that the highway system over in that area is what it
needs to be safety-wise, you are full of it... So should
CalTrans just take the risk that another major earthquake
won't occur and pancake the entire eastern span of the
Bay Bridge and have a major insurance loss in the
Billions of dollars range for the structure, never mind the
wrongful death and property loss claims for the thousands
of cars and people who were killed when the whole thing
gave way? Seriously, get a clue... Just because you
see no logic to something, that doesn't mean that it isn't
there -- just that you are UNABLE to see it past your
biases and ignorance...

~~ Evan

On Jan 14, 5:50*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
?
"DGDevin" wrote



Some friends of ours just lost almost everything they own when an
electrical fire in the garage (idiot landlord saving money by having a
relative do electrical work that turned out to be grossly sub-code) spread
into the attic of the attached house before anyone even noticed. *If one
person hadn't smelled smoke and awakened the rest of the family.... *If I
were building a house I'd happily pay for a fire suppression system, it
sure beats burning to death.

The correct answer is to follow the electrical code and prevent the fire.
Your friends though, although greatly inconvenienced, should have no
monetary loss because they have renter's insurance. *They did didn't they?

Oh, the smoke detectors should have also alerted them to danger. *Why did
they not go off and a person had to smell the smoke? *Even if the landlord
did not have them, for $10 you can protect yourself.


I know of no smoke detectors in garage ceilings... Perhaps the attic
in
question was also lacking one as well...

It is quite easy to smell a fire as little wisps of smoke will be
drawn into
the bedroom from the attic by air leaks and the flow through windows
before it will get into the hallway where the smoke detectors are
located...

I even heard of a recent incident where a woman in a nearby community
attempted to kill herself and successfully killed her 8-year-old son
with
carbon monoxide fumes from lighting up a Hibachi grill inside a
bedroom,
neither the smoke detector nor the required CO detector were activated
in the home... So don't assume that a smoke or CO detector will be
able
to alert you to ALL dangers or fires in your home which could kill
you...

~~ Evan

On Jan 14, 4:41*pm, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:
On Jan 14, 10:54*am, Frank Kurz wrote:



On 13/01/2011 4:56 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:

On Jan 13, 7:46 am, nick *wrote:
On Jan 12, 11:22 pm, Smitty *wrote:

In article
,

* *wrote:
All I claimed was that such things would not be
required if
there was not a trend of accidents...

Bzzt. Incorrect. GFCIs became law for one reason: Someone who stood to
make tens of millions of dollars selling them lobbied for the law. There
is no trend of accidents.

I have seen GFCI prevent many accidents over the years but I have also
seen them bypassed as well.
where back to the people who get zapped are the ones using frayed
extension cords or cords with grounds cut off and plugged in back
wards etc etc.
Every time you read an electrocution report in any of the trade
magazines the individual has done something to cause the accident.
latest article was on a farm where pressure washer was totally
corroded safety shields off and *no ground and gfci bypassed wonder
why some one died.

So exactly what is the "maintenance" on a basic sprinkler system? *I'm
asking because I'm installing sprinklers in the garage I'm building.
I ran water pipes off the main cold coming in and I bought some of
those sprinklers with the little expansion glass pieces in the
centers. *You certainly can't test tripping one of them because then
you have to replace it.

In our neck of the woods you'd require a back-flow preventer on your
sprinkler system to avoid contamination of the domestic supply. *That
has to be inspected annually. *Check with your local AHJ regarding any
further requirements. *You may be required to interconnect your smoke
alarms to a flow switch. *If it's a heated garage and depending on your
location, you may require a low temperature alarm. *In fact it might not
be a bad idea to have one anyway and interconnect it to your monitored
security system.

So, about how many people have any kind of security system
in their house? *They're pretty rare here in small-town Midwest.

Cindy Hamilton


That is a **** poor excuse... Do you have door locks on your doors
in small-town Midwest too? Or is the town so small and safe that
everyone would be on red alert the moment a strange car pulled off
the main road at the blinking traffic signal at the one intersection?

Wow... Sadly the ridiculous things that are being offered as
challenges and/or excuses against requiring automatic fire sprinklers
in homes are surprising me... Which shouldn't, I mean airbags became
a requirement in cars because people were failing to use the
seatbelts...
In many accidents the combination of airbag and seatbelt will save
your life...

~~ Evan

On Jan 14, 1:26*pm, Shaun Eli wrote:
Re the bridge analogy- did they replace the bridge not only to save
lives but also to have a bridge in operation? If an old bridge falls
down not only do people die but you've got to replace the bridge
anyway, and in the years it takes to do that you've got no bridge.

Good point, about bridge availability.

But the probability of the entire bridge failing is small.
Plus California has speciality contractors that excel at putting
bridges & freeways back into service VERY quickly.

You can buy a lot of "down time" for $10 billion.

And you have to factor in the probability of failure over time (ie
probability of failure on a per year basis)

cheers
Bob

?
"Evan" wrote

I know of no smoke detectors in garage ceilings... Perhaps the attic
in
question was also lacking one as well...

It is quite easy to smell a fire as little wisps of smoke will be
drawn into
the bedroom from the attic by air leaks and the flow through windows
before it will get into the hallway where the smoke detectors are
located...

For $10, put one in each of the bedrooms. You are proposing a $10,000
solution to a $50 problem.



I even heard of a recent incident where a woman in a nearby community
attempted to kill herself and successfully killed her 8-year-old son
with
carbon monoxide fumes from lighting up a Hibachi grill inside a
bedroom,
neither the smoke detector nor the required CO detector were activated
in the home... So don't assume that a smoke or CO detector will be
able
to alert you to ALL dangers or fires in your home which could kill
you...

You are correct, a CO detector will not alert me to a mentally ill parent.
She also blocked an exit. This was an intentional deed, not accidental CO
leaking. I image she deactivated any alarms beforehand. Sprinklers would
not have helped her in any case. She was intent on murder/suicide and was
50% successful.

On Jan 14, 8:22*pm, Evan wrote:
On Jan 14, 1:59*am, DD_BobK wrote:











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

Ok... *First off Bob, we are all talking about an additional
system on a home which will cost all of maybe $10,000
maximum on an average sized home... *If you can not
afford that cost on a home which will preserve lives and
the home itself in the future and would rather be spending
it on a fancier bathroom or kitchen, then you really should
be living in a high rise tower with small brick lined rooms
and an elevator ride of two minutes up and down...

It is NOT an immediate out of pocket expense to most
people as they have a mortgage to build the house in
the first place...

Second, fighting a fire costs a LOT more than the $10,000
a residential fire suppression system would cost... *Think
of a small town which has four fire apparatus... *For a big
enough fire they would all be at that one house dealing with
it... *That is an awful lot of water being pumped and diesel
fuel to power the pumps... *Now your community may have
a mutual aid agreement with nearby communities to cover
the now empty firehouses or to send additional manpower
to a working fire, but that costs quite a bit of money for
each truck sent by a neighboring community... *Equipment
and hoses are frequently worn out or damaged in fighting
fires so that can add to the cost as all of that equipment
must be replaced for your fire department to be at full
functioning capacity...

So why shouldn't the government place a tiny portion of
the burden of the costs of such work on the owner of the
home by requiring automatic fire sprinklers be installed in
homes... *The fact that it will cost LESS to finish putting
out any fires which have spread to the attics or roofs of
fire sprinkler equipped homes and overhaul them AND that
such systems will SAVE LIVES isn't enough for you,
you feel that there should be no requirements at all...

As for your Oakland Bay Bridge babbling bull, that bridge
is older than 50 years... *Construction started in 1933,
and the bridge was modified in 1989 after another span
collapsed during the Loma Prieta earthquake... Could
it be that a 70-something year old bridge which has a
high maintenance cost and a history of span failure
even AFTER it was structurally upgraded more than 20
years ago should be replaced to make traveling over
the Oakland Bay Bridge? *You also neglected to
mention in your "analysis" that 42 people were killed
on a newer structure which was built starting in 1955
which totally collapsed in that same area... *Yeah,
the Cypress Street Viaduct killed many people in
1989 and it is connected to the Bay Bridge so to say
that the highway system over in that area is what it
needs to be safety-wise, you are full of it... *So should
CalTrans just take the risk that another major earthquake
won't occur and pancake the entire eastern span of the
Bay Bridge and have a major insurance loss in the
Billions of dollars range for the structure, never mind the
wrongful death and property loss claims for the thousands
of cars and people who were killed when the whole thing
gave way? *Seriously, get a clue... *Just because you
see no logic to something, that doesn't mean that it isn't
there -- just that you are UNABLE to see it past your
biases and ignorance...

~~ Evan

Evan-

What a pleasant reply......my point was, cost of systems (all of them)
vs number of lives saved; that is $ per life saved.

Instead of insults, how about commenting on the numbers.

Instead of $10 billion on a new bridge, how about a less expensive
bridge (less of a showpiece) , safe but more cost effective?

btw I worked on CalTrans research projects for years. I know the
bridge designers at CalTrans in Sac.
I also know that the politicians had WAY too much influence on the
project, it was not driven by safety & structural engineering.

Instead of overspending on this particular bridge design, how about
another lane on the 5 between LA & SF?
That might save way more lives..... year after year.

Or individual safety upgrades throughout the state; tree removals,
extra guard rails, crash barriers.

My point is...... expenditures do not take place in a vacuum.

Fire sprinklers MIGHT be a wise expenditure but maybe there are other
choices that will save more lives for less money.

cheers
Bob

On Jan 14, 8:22*pm, Evan wrote:
On Jan 14, 1:59*am, DD_BobK wrote:











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

Ok... *First off Bob, we are all talking about an additional
system on a home which will cost all of maybe $10,000
maximum on an average sized home... *If you can not
afford that cost on a home which will preserve lives and
the home itself in the future and would rather be spending
it on a fancier bathroom or kitchen, then you really should
be living in a high rise tower with small brick lined rooms
and an elevator ride of two minutes up and down...

It is NOT an immediate out of pocket expense to most
people as they have a mortgage to build the house in
the first place...

Second, fighting a fire costs a LOT more than the $10,000
a residential fire suppression system would cost... *Think
of a small town which has four fire apparatus... *For a big
enough fire they would all be at that one house dealing with
it... *That is an awful lot of water being pumped and diesel
fuel to power the pumps... *Now your community may have
a mutual aid agreement with nearby communities to cover
the now empty firehouses or to send additional manpower
to a working fire, but that costs quite a bit of money for
each truck sent by a neighboring community... *Equipment
and hoses are frequently worn out or damaged in fighting
fires so that can add to the cost as all of that equipment
must be replaced for your fire department to be at full
functioning capacity...

So why shouldn't the government place a tiny portion of
the burden of the costs of such work on the owner of the
home by requiring automatic fire sprinklers be installed in
homes... *The fact that it will cost LESS to finish putting
out any fires which have spread to the attics or roofs of
fire sprinkler equipped homes and overhaul them AND that
such systems will SAVE LIVES isn't enough for you,
you feel that there should be no requirements at all...

As for your Oakland Bay Bridge babbling bull, that bridge
is older than 50 years... *Construction started in 1933,
and the bridge was modified in 1989 after another span
collapsed during the Loma Prieta earthquake... Could
it be that a 70-something year old bridge which has a
high maintenance cost and a history of span failure
even AFTER it was structurally upgraded more than 20
years ago should be replaced to make traveling over
the Oakland Bay Bridge? *You also neglected to
mention in your "analysis" that 42 people were killed
on a newer structure which was built starting in 1955
which totally collapsed in that same area... *Yeah,
the Cypress Street Viaduct killed many people in
1989 and it is connected to the Bay Bridge so to say
that the highway system over in that area is what it
needs to be safety-wise, you are full of it... *So should
CalTrans just take the risk that another major earthquake
won't occur and pancake the entire eastern span of the
Bay Bridge and have a major insurance loss in the
Billions of dollars range for the structure, never mind the
wrongful death and property loss claims for the thousands
of cars and people who were killed when the whole thing
gave way? *Seriously, get a clue... *Just because you
see no logic to something, that doesn't mean that it isn't
there -- just that you are UNABLE to see it past your
biases and ignorance...

~~ Evan

Evan-

Now to consider the economic costs of fire sprinklers in new
construction.

Before the "Great Housing Boom & Bust", the US built about 500,000 new
homes per year.

At $5k to $10k per house for fire sprinklers we're talking about $2.5
billion to $5 billion per year.
Yes, the cost is financed over 30 years
but it is still capital ( the money was borrowed, someone loaned it)
that could be applied to other uses in society.

According to the CDC numbers ~2500 people are killed in house fires in
the US every year.
Most people live in the "old homes", so how many of these 2500 people
will be saved by this switch in new construction?

So what is the cost per life saved?

btw good luck suing the state of California for "wrong death" because
a bridge or freeway falls on someone.
The number of people killed by freeways & bridges over time is
vanishingly small.

Spending money on "low return" so called "life saving" schemes is the
real tragedy.

Technology like smoke detectors is way more cost effective, as are
other potential ideas.

Do you think that air bags are a good thing? And cost effective?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/25466.php


cheers
Bob

?
"Evan" wrote


Ok... First off Bob, we are all talking about an additional
system on a home which will cost all of maybe $10,000
maximum on an average sized home... If you can not
afford that cost on a home which will preserve lives and
the home itself in the future and would rather be spending
it on a fancier bathroom or kitchen, then you really should
be living in a high rise tower with small brick lined rooms
and an elevator ride of two minutes up and down...

It is NOT an immediate out of pocket expense to most
people as they have a mortgage to build the house in
the first place...

Right, it is not an immediate out of pocket expense, it is a finance payment
that will be huge over time. On a 30 year mortgage at 4%, that is $47.47
for 360 months or $17,186. Adding that much to the cost of a home can be
devastating to the small house market for lower incomes.



Second, fighting a fire costs a LOT more than the $10,000
a residential fire suppression system would cost... Think
of a small town which has four fire apparatus... For a big
enough fire they would all be at that one house dealing with
it... That is an awful lot of water being pumped and diesel
fuel to power the pumps...

Multiply $10000 times the number of houses in the town. Is that not greater
than the cost of fighting a few fires every year? While you may be able to
justify the cost over one house, you cannot over an entire town.



So why shouldn't the government place a tiny portion of
the burden of the costs of such work on the owner of the
home by requiring automatic fire sprinklers be installed in
homes...

Because it is not a tiny cost and putting sprinklers in every house would
not eliminate the fire department. They still need that equipment and
people to operate it. Put some real numbers together and lets talk. Right
now you are blowing silly scenarios out your ass with no facts to back it
up.


The fact that it will cost LESS to finish putting
out any fires which have spread to the attics or roofs of
fire sprinkler equipped homes and overhaul them AND that
such systems will SAVE LIVES isn't enough for you,
you feel that there should be no requirements at all...

Let's see the numbers.
I have doubts, but I'm sure you can remove them.

In article
,
Evan wrote:

... airbags became
a requirement in cars because people were failing to use the
seatbelts...

I'm not looking around intentionally for things to disagree with you on,
but you make some irrational assumptions about things.

Airbags are known by the acronym SRS for a reason. They were *never*
intended to replace seatbelts. The issue of people not wearing seatbelts
was addressed with seatbelt laws, not airbags.

In article ,
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

Right now you are blowing silly scenarios out your ass
with no facts to back it up.

But this is usenet, not Dragnet, Ed. We don't need no stinking facts.

?
"Smitty Two" wrote

Airbags are known by the acronym SRS for a reason.

Supplemental Restraint System, or something close to that.

On Jan 15, 11:54*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

*Evan wrote:
... airbags became
a requirement in cars because people were failing to use the
seatbelts...

I'm not looking around intentionally for things to disagree with you on,
but you make some irrational assumptions about things.

Airbags are known by the acronym SRS for a reason. They were *never*
intended to replace seatbelts. The issue of people not wearing seatbelts
was addressed with seatbelt laws, not airbags.


Bull****... Airbags are supplemental, they work best when deployed on
someone who is belted in...

They will stop you from hitting the steering wheel and windshield if
you
aren't wearing your seat belt...

Seat belt laws don't *MAKE* people wear them, even when it is a
primary
offense that the police could make a traffic stop if they observe you
not
belted in...

Airbags are not just there to make it easier on the people properly
wearing
seat belts, they are a last ditch effort to save the idiotic who don't
wear
belts too...

~~ Evan

On Jan 15, 10:00*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
?
"Evan" wrote



Ok... *First off Bob, we are all talking about an additional
system on a home which will cost all of maybe $10,000
maximum on an average sized home... *If you can not
afford that cost on a home which will preserve lives and
the home itself in the future and would rather be spending
it on a fancier bathroom or kitchen, then you really should
be living in a high rise tower with small brick lined rooms
and an elevator ride of two minutes up and down...

It is NOT an immediate out of pocket expense to most
people as they have a mortgage to build the house in
the first place...

Right, it is not an immediate out of pocket expense, it is a finance payment
that will be huge over time. * On a 30 year mortgage at 4%, that is $47..47
for 360 months or $17,186. *Adding that much to the cost of a home can be
devastating to the small house market for lower incomes.



Second, fighting a fire costs a LOT more than the $10,000
a residential fire suppression system would cost... *Think
of a small town which has four fire apparatus... *For a big
enough fire they would all be at that one house dealing with
it... *That is an awful lot of water being pumped and diesel
fuel to power the pumps...

Multiply $10000 times the number of houses in the town. *Is that not greater
than the cost of fighting a few fires every year? *While you may be able to
justify the cost over one house, you cannot over an entire town.

So why shouldn't the government place a tiny portion of
the burden of the costs of such work on the owner of the
home by requiring automatic fire sprinklers be installed in
homes...

Because it is not a tiny cost and putting sprinklers in every house would
not eliminate the fire department. *They still need that equipment and
people to operate it. * Put some real numbers together and lets talk. Right
now you are blowing silly scenarios out your ass with no facts to back it
up.

The fact that it will cost LESS to finish putting

out any fires which have spread to the attics or roofs of
fire sprinkler equipped homes and overhaul them AND that
such systems will SAVE LIVES isn't enough for you,
you feel that there should be no requirements at all...

Let's see the numbers.
I have doubts, but I'm sure you can remove them.


Ok Ed,

If someone can not afford an extra $18k when building a house,
they should be building a house... They should be living in
the public project housing in a nasty city on welfare...

I hear people **** and moan about houses and the market,
too many idiotic people bought "investment properties" with not
one clue how to either "invest" nor rent them out...

Don't cry over the market -- you are supposed to buy a house
because you want to live there for a very long time, not because
you want to upgrade to the next biggest and best thing when
you have paid down your mortgage enough to have 20% down
on another house you aren't able to afford...

Buy a house that you can afford and live within your means,
not a house which has a mortgage payments you can't
really afford if you were honest, those 2 shiny new leased
cars in the garage/driveway and the lastest and greatest
shiny electronic toys...

~~ Evan

On Jan 14, 10:33*pm, Evan wrote:
On Jan 14, 4:41*pm, Cindy Hamilton
wrote:



On Jan 14, 10:54*am, Frank Kurz wrote:

On 13/01/2011 4:56 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:

On Jan 13, 7:46 am, nick *wrote:
On Jan 12, 11:22 pm, Smitty *wrote:

In article
,

* *wrote:
All I claimed was that such things would not be
required if
there was not a trend of accidents...

Bzzt. Incorrect. GFCIs became law for one reason: Someone who stood to
make tens of millions of dollars selling them lobbied for the law.. There
is no trend of accidents.

I have seen GFCI prevent many accidents over the years but I have also
seen them bypassed as well.
where back to the people who get zapped are the ones using frayed
extension cords or cords with grounds cut off and plugged in back
wards etc etc.
Every time you read an electrocution report in any of the trade
magazines the individual has done something to cause the accident.
latest article was on a farm where pressure washer was totally
corroded safety shields off and *no ground and gfci bypassed wonder
why some one died.

So exactly what is the "maintenance" on a basic sprinkler system? *I'm
asking because I'm installing sprinklers in the garage I'm building..
I ran water pipes off the main cold coming in and I bought some of
those sprinklers with the little expansion glass pieces in the
centers. *You certainly can't test tripping one of them because then
you have to replace it.

In our neck of the woods you'd require a back-flow preventer on your
sprinkler system to avoid contamination of the domestic supply. *That
has to be inspected annually. *Check with your local AHJ regarding any
further requirements. *You may be required to interconnect your smoke
alarms to a flow switch. *If it's a heated garage and depending on your
location, you may require a low temperature alarm. *In fact it might not
be a bad idea to have one anyway and interconnect it to your monitored
security system.

So, about how many people have any kind of security system
in their house? *They're pretty rare here in small-town Midwest.

Cindy Hamilton

That is a **** poor excuse... *Do you have door locks on your doors
in small-town Midwest too? *Or is the town so small and safe that
everyone would be on red alert the moment a strange car pulled off
the main road at the blinking traffic signal at the one intersection?

Wow... *Sadly the ridiculous things that are being offered as
challenges and/or excuses against requiring automatic fire sprinklers
in homes are surprising me... *Which shouldn't, I mean airbags became
a requirement in cars because people were failing to use the
seatbelts...
In many accidents the combination of airbag and seatbelt will save
your life...

~~ Evan

You keep missing the point, if someone wants a house full of
sprinklers or a car with airbags and seatbelts fine but don't have the
government mandate it

On Jan 15, 12:22*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
?
"Evan" wrote



I know of no smoke detectors in garage ceilings... *Perhaps the attic
in
question was also lacking one as well...

It is quite easy to smell a fire as little wisps of smoke will be
drawn into
the bedroom from the attic by air leaks and the flow through windows
before it will get into the hallway where the smoke detectors are
located...

For $10, put one in each of the bedrooms. *You are proposing a $10,000
solution to a $50 problem.



I even heard of a recent incident where a woman in a nearby community
attempted to kill herself and successfully killed her 8-year-old son
with
carbon monoxide fumes from lighting up a Hibachi grill inside a
bedroom,
neither the smoke detector nor the required CO detector were activated
in the home... *So don't assume that a smoke or CO detector will be
able
to alert you to ALL dangers or fires in your home which could kill
you...

You are correct, a CO detector will not alert me to a mentally ill parent..
She also blocked an exit. *This was an intentional deed, not accidental CO
leaking. *I image she deactivated any alarms beforehand. *Sprinklers would
not have helped her in any case. *She was intent on murder/suicide and was
50% successful.

Not a $50 problem... You can't use smoke detectors or CO monitors in
a
garage, but I am sure you knew that... Not many single family homes
have
any rate-of-rise heat detectors installed in them, which is what you
would
want to have in a garage...

Not in rental property which must have those detectors tested twice
annually...

And, no, according to the fire chief who was interviews at a press
conference
about the incident no alarms were disabled...

As to your assumption that sprinklers would not have been any help, I
wouldn't
jump to that conclusion, those grills put out a lot of heat, confining
that heat
inside one room might have gotten hot enough at the ceiling to pop a
sprinkler
head, don't know either way because no one has conducted an
experiment
and measured how hot it got in the room...

Your assertion that the mother was mentally ill is the first I have
heard about
that aspect of the case, do you have a source for that information, or
are you
just adding your personal opinion/moral judgment to your
argumentation?

~~ Evan

In article
,
Evan wrote:

On Jan 15, 11:54*am, Smitty Two wrote:


Airbags are known by the acronym SRS for a reason. They were *never*
intended to replace seatbelts. The issue of people not wearing seatbelts
was addressed with seatbelt laws, not airbags.


Bull****... Airbags are supplemental, they work best when deployed on
someone who is belted in...



Uh, that's *exactly* what I said, and you're just so ornery, or perhaps
retarded, that you have to call BS before agreeing with me.

In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:


Airbags are known by the acronym SRS for a reason. They were *never*
intended to replace seatbelts. The issue of people not wearing seatbelts
was addressed with seatbelt laws, not airbags.

If you look at the legislative history of the airbag you will see that
you are wrong. In 1977, when President Carter
appointed former Ralph Nader lobbyist Joan Claybrook to head the NHTSA.
Claybrook actively sought to establish an effective safety restraint law
and her efforts partially paid off when Transportation Secretary Brock
Adams ordered all new cars to have automatic safety belts **OR**air bags
by 1984.(This was also called the passive restraint law because of the
either mandate where the driver/occupants did not have to do too much
more than just sit in the seat. (emphasis mine). After a little hooha
under Reagan, (State Farm vs Auto Mfrs Assoc) the Department
of Transportation issued new regulations ordering Auto producers to
install air bags between 1986 and 1989. But it left one loophole: If, by
1989, states comprising two thirds of the US population implemented
mandatory seat-belt use, the federal regulation would not apply. (In
other words if there were mandatory seat belt laws, then there was no
need for airbags). IN '91 Bush the Senior signed a law saying airbags
would be mandatory in a couple of years, of course by then, most
automakers were offering them as standard for marketing reasons.
It was known, FYI,

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Jan 15, 10:47*am, Evan wrote:
On Jan 15, 12:22*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:









?
"Evan" wrote

I know of no smoke detectors in garage ceilings... *Perhaps the attic
in
question was also lacking one as well...

It is quite easy to smell a fire as little wisps of smoke will be
drawn into
the bedroom from the attic by air leaks and the flow through windows
before it will get into the hallway where the smoke detectors are
located...

For $10, put one in each of the bedrooms. *You are proposing a $10,000
solution to a $50 problem.

I even heard of a recent incident where a woman in a nearby community
attempted to kill herself and successfully killed her 8-year-old son
with
carbon monoxide fumes from lighting up a Hibachi grill inside a
bedroom,
neither the smoke detector nor the required CO detector were activated
in the home... *So don't assume that a smoke or CO detector will be
able
to alert you to ALL dangers or fires in your home which could kill
you...

You are correct, a CO detector will not alert me to a mentally ill parent.

On Jan 15, 10:19*am, Evan wrote:
On Jan 15, 11:54*am, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,

*Evan wrote:
... airbags became
a requirement in cars because people were failing to use the
seatbelts...

I'm not looking around intentionally for things to disagree with you on,
but you make some irrational assumptions about things.

Airbags are known by the acronym SRS for a reason. They were *never*
intended to replace seatbelts. The issue of people not wearing seatbelts
was addressed with seatbelt laws, not airbags.

Bull****... *Airbags are supplemental, they work best when deployed on
someone who is belted in...

They will stop you from hitting the steering wheel and windshield if
you
aren't wearing your seat belt...

Seat belt laws don't *MAKE* people wear them, even when it is a
primary
offense that the police could make a traffic stop if they observe you
not
belted in...

Airbags are not just there to make it easier on the people properly
wearing
seat belts, they are a last ditch effort to save the idiotic who don't
wear
belts too...

~~ Evan

Airbags are not just there to make it easier on the people properly wearing
seat belts, they are a last ditch effort to save the idiotic who don't
wear belts too...

If that is intend their intended purpose do they really accomplish it?
What about collateral damge?

Any comment on this article?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/25466.php

On Jan 15, 10:25*am, Evan wrote:
On Jan 15, 10:00*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:









?
"Evan" wrote

Ok... *First off Bob, we are all talking about an additional
system on a home which will cost all of maybe $10,000
maximum on an average sized home... *If you can not
afford that cost on a home which will preserve lives and
the home itself in the future and would rather be spending
it on a fancier bathroom or kitchen, then you really should
be living in a high rise tower with small brick lined rooms
and an elevator ride of two minutes up and down...

It is NOT an immediate out of pocket expense to most
people as they have a mortgage to build the house in
the first place...

Right, it is not an immediate out of pocket expense, it is a finance payment
that will be huge over time. * On a 30 year mortgage at 4%, that is $47.47
for 360 months or $17,186. *Adding that much to the cost of a home can be
devastating to the small house market for lower incomes.

Second, fighting a fire costs a LOT more than the $10,000
a residential fire suppression system would cost... *Think
of a small town which has four fire apparatus... *For a big
enough fire they would all be at that one house dealing with
it... *That is an awful lot of water being pumped and diesel
fuel to power the pumps...

Multiply $10000 times the number of houses in the town. *Is that not greater
than the cost of fighting a few fires every year? *While you may be able to
justify the cost over one house, you cannot over an entire town.

So why shouldn't the government place a tiny portion of
the burden of the costs of such work on the owner of the
home by requiring automatic fire sprinklers be installed in
homes...

Because it is not a tiny cost and putting sprinklers in every house would
not eliminate the fire department. *They still need that equipment and
people to operate it. * Put some real numbers together and lets talk. Right
now you are blowing silly scenarios out your ass with no facts to back it
up.

The fact that it will cost LESS to finish putting

out any fires which have spread to the attics or roofs of
fire sprinkler equipped homes and overhaul them AND that
such systems will SAVE LIVES isn't enough for you,
you feel that there should be no requirements at all...

Let's see the numbers.
I have doubts, but I'm sure you can remove them.

Ok Ed,

If someone can not afford an extra $18k when building a house,
they should be building a house... *They should be living in
the public project housing in a nasty city on welfare...

I hear people **** and moan about houses and the market,
too many idiotic people bought "investment properties" with not
one clue how to either "invest" nor rent them out...

Don't cry over the market -- you are supposed to buy a house
because you want to live there for a very long time, not because
you want to upgrade to the next biggest and best thing when
you have paid down your mortgage enough to have 20% down
on another house you aren't able to afford...

Buy a house that you can afford and live within your means,
not a house which has a mortgage payments you can't
really afford if you were honest, those 2 shiny new leased
cars in the garage/driveway and the lastest and greatest
shiny electronic toys...

~~ Evan

Evan-

So everyone should live their lives according to the plan that you
endorse?

cheers
Bob

?
"Evan" wrote

You are correct, a CO detector will not alert me to a mentally ill
parent.
She also blocked an exit. This was an intentional deed, not accidental
CO
leaking. I image she deactivated any alarms beforehand. Sprinklers
would
not have helped her in any case. She was intent on murder/suicide and
was
50% successful.

Not a $50 problem... You can't use smoke detectors or CO monitors in
a
garage, but I am sure you knew that... Not many single family homes
have
any rate-of-rise heat detectors installed in them, which is what you
would
want to have in a garage...


You put the $10 smoke detectors in five different rooms. $50 and problem
solved.



And, no, according to the fire chief who was interviews at a press
conference
about the incident no alarms were disabled...

Perhaps not, but I believe she confined the fire to a single room and doing
so would prevent a detector in the hallway from going off. In any case, we
are dealing with CO, not a fire, so it would make no difference.



As to your assumption that sprinklers would not have been any help, I
wouldn't
jump to that conclusion, those grills put out a lot of heat, confining
that heat
inside one room might have gotten hot enough at the ceiling to pop a
sprinkler
head, don't know either way because no one has conducted an
experiment
and measured how hot it got in the room...

Having installed sprinkler systems in two buildings, one 40,000 sq. ft and
the other 130,000 sq ft and manufacturing temperatures and boilers, I can
say the sprinkler would not have gone off from the heat of a hibachi that is
4' or more away from a head. It may have eventually started a fire, but
that would be after the people were dead anyway.



Your assertion that the mother was mentally ill is the first I have
heard about
that aspect of the case, do you have a source for that information, or
are you
just adding your personal opinion/moral judgment to your
argumentation?

A mother plots and plans and kills her child and you have doubts about her
mental condition?

?
"DD_BobK" wrote

You can't use smoke detectors or CO monitors in a garage


please explain?

cheers
Bob

He's half right. A CO detector in the garage can go off when you start the
car or pull it in and trap some before you turn it off. As for smoke
detectors, there are types that work just fine.

?
"Evan" wrote

If someone can not afford an extra $18k when building a house,
they should be building a house... They should be living in
the public project housing in a nasty city on welfare...

I hear people **** and moan about houses and the market,
too many idiotic people bought "investment properties" with not
one clue how to either "invest" nor rent them out...

There are people like that, but there are many hard working people buying or
building modest homes that plan to live in them for life and $48 a month
extra is difficult. I can not only name you a half dozen families in that
category, I can also show you their unburned houses that have never had a
fire.




Buy a house that you can afford and live within your means,
not a house which has a mortgage payments you can't
really afford if you were honest, those 2 shiny new leased
cars in the garage/driveway and the lastest and greatest
shiny electronic toys...

I agree, Evan, but not everyone lives like that. Building a 5000 sq. ft.
McMansion? Perhaps a fire abatement system is not a big deal, but for a
modest two bedroom ranch house, it is. There have been many houses built
like that over the years. How about Habitat for Humanity houses?

On Jan 15, 10:47*am, Evan wrote:
On Jan 15, 12:22*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:









?
"Evan" wrote

I know of no smoke detectors in garage ceilings... *Perhaps the attic
in
question was also lacking one as well...

It is quite easy to smell a fire as little wisps of smoke will be
drawn into
the bedroom from the attic by air leaks and the flow through windows
before it will get into the hallway where the smoke detectors are
located...

For $10, put one in each of the bedrooms. *You are proposing a $10,000
solution to a $50 problem.

I even heard of a recent incident where a woman in a nearby community
attempted to kill herself and successfully killed her 8-year-old son
with
carbon monoxide fumes from lighting up a Hibachi grill inside a
bedroom,
neither the smoke detector nor the required CO detector were activated
in the home... *So don't assume that a smoke or CO detector will be
able
to alert you to ALL dangers or fires in your home which could kill
you...

You are correct, a CO detector will not alert me to a mentally ill parent.

I've had similar problems with Even missing points. So,
don't feel bad.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"mleuck" wrote in message
...
On Jan 14, 10:33 pm, Evan
wrote:


Wow... Sadly the ridiculous things that are being offered
as
challenges and/or excuses against requiring automatic fire
sprinklers
in homes are surprising me... Which shouldn't, I mean
airbags became
a requirement in cars because people were failing to use
the
seatbelts...
In many accidents the combination of airbag and seatbelt
will save
your life...

~~ Evan

You keep missing the point, if someone wants a house full of
sprinklers or a car with airbags and seatbelts fine but
don't have the
government mandate it

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:15:15 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

?
"DD_BobK" wrote

You can't use smoke detectors or CO monitors in a garage


please explain?

cheers
Bob

He's half right. A CO detector in the garage can go off when you start the
car or pull it in and trap some before you turn it off. As for smoke
detectors, there are types that work just fine.

Who cares about CO in a garage?

The rest of the people on the military base. Man,
if the CO catches you..... you be doing pushups
for a week!

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
news:9o64j6lijrpoaejrlkwaerkhjweiorjksndklrnseklrh fil;useriasdhn v
zsdhkcujhfilzsduhfkljzsehdkf.jhzseukldrfhaeisuhrfu klzsdhbfljkzxdck.vbhzd;o
fija;oseijfo;isdzh gk.zxdh gil uh zsdiofj;osdifh
kzsj.dhfnklasdhrfkijsed;ioflj zsdklcnvklxdjf
;lASDJfo;izsjdflkzhjfiheios;djf;ziszdotf;oslejdrtl ksndklftnsdfkjg;lisjcvbop;ixjfc;oh
jxd;lfigjx;ocv gklj xdlfictj g;oisdlxfjgtospirjtgops
erdjfog;sj xdfogi;srjz;iofghns
r;ioxdfghs;oxgtjspo'jdfgio;xjdg;liksjdfgoilxnchklj ox;dfgj;ozidrfjglglkxjdflkvgmodjg;lk
zdjo;ivl xcjb/;lkjmnfdox;cviljbn ;lxckjvgvb;olj zd;oxclj
...
On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:15:15 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:

You can't use smoke detectors or CO monitors in a garage


please explain?

cheers
Bob

He's half right. A CO detector in the garage can go off
when you start the
car or pull it in and trap some before you turn it off. As
for smoke
detectors, there are types that work just fine.

Who cares about CO in a garage?

On Jan 15, 11:54*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

*Evan wrote:
... airbags became
a requirement in cars because people were failing to use the
seatbelts...

I'm not looking around intentionally for things to disagree with you on,
but you make some irrational assumptions about things.

Airbags are known by the acronym SRS for a reason. They were *never*
intended to replace seatbelts. The issue of people not wearing seatbelts
was addressed with seatbelt laws, not airbags.

The problem is community's that have run these model sprinkler
programs have good water supply relatively flat etc etc.
which makes a big difference I can look out my window and I am even
with water tank on hill what kind of pressure you think we have here.
They always cite this community outside philly with sprinklers again a
flat community with all new 18" water lines
Then you have to wonder how many systems are actually still turned on
after first hard freeze I will bet at least 20% will not work. but as
usual no one wants to talk about it it is always rosy glasses.
guess there going to have to find out 20 years out what bad mistakes
where made.
just like with this new pex pipe looks great now what about 20 years
from now.