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

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

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

Others are pushing for it too

http://www.derbys-fire.gov.uk/keepin...hink-sprinkler

Andy Burns wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

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

Others are pushing for it too

http://www.derbys-fire.gov.uk/keepin...hink-sprinkler

From that link


a.. Dependable
Sprinklers not only warn of a fire, they also act immediately to control
it - even if no body is present.

Should that not say "no one"?

--
Adam

On 30/05/2012 23:52, John Rumm wrote:

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


One township in the USA mandated the installation of sprinklers in all
buildings so that it could save the cost of maintaining its fire
department.

Colin Bignell

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


John,

As one who over the years has been involved in repairing several fire
damaged dwellings (two with fatalities) [1], I think that sprinklers in
dwellings are a bloody good idea, and is one of those where the value of
fitting them could well far outweigh the costs in lives saved and reduced
injuries. As for the builders shouting about the costs, they will recoupe
these simply by increasing the cost of their houses from eye-watering to
larcency with the extortionate profits they make on them.

Now if they could legislate for householders to have some training in how a
dwelling fire develops when doors are left open at night, along with the
very high temperatures created, and how to escape from a burning building,
that would be a bonus - but then the shoutsof a "nanny state" would be very
loud!

[1] Some of the sights I've seen have been horrendous, and I have a
great respect for those professionals that fight the things (and a great
awareness instilled in myself and family).


All the best

Cash

Who will now climb down from his high-horse after leaving many of his
thoughts on the subject left unsaid.

On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:52:36 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:


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

**** the moaning *******s. This is good thing.
I'm fitting sprinklers in my gaff and it's not so much to save my
life, although that's important enough; it's so that I don't have to
stand at the side of the road watching my house burn to the ground
while the local volunteer fire brigade get their act together.
I don't mind clearing up some water damage - who gives a ****e about
that if the majority of the house is intact.

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

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


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

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

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

Cheers

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

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

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

Cash wrote
John Rumm wrote

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

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

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

We don’t mandate full fire hose hydrants in all houses either,
for the same reason.

As for the builders shouting about the costs, they will recoupe these
simply by increasing the cost of their houses from eye-watering to
larcency with the extortionate profits they make on them.

The problem is that home buyers will have to pay that cost.

Now if they could legislate for householders to have some training in how
a dwelling fire develops when doors are left open at night, along with the
very high temperatures created, and how to escape from a burning building,
that would be a bonus - but then the shoutsof a "nanny state" would be
very loud!

Because, again, its just not cost effective.

We don’t even do it with car drivers and they have a lot more life
threatening accidents than we see with life threatening fires in houses.

[1] Some of the sights I've seen have been horrendous, and I have a
great respect for those professionals that fight the things (and a great
awareness instilled in myself and family).

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote
John Rumm wrote

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

**** the moaning *******s. This is good thing.

Not compulsory in all new houses it isnt.

I'm fitting sprinklers in my gaff and it's not so much to save my
life, although that's important enough; it's so that I don't have to
stand at the side of the road watching my house burn to the ground
while the local volunteer fire brigade get their act together.

You've always been welcome to do anything you like,
but you arent welcome to make everyone di it the way
you choose to do it yourself.

I don't mind clearing up some water damage - who gives
a ****e about that if the majority of the house is intact.

Those that choose to do something else in the event of a substantial fire.
and those who ensure that there cant be substantial fire and so don't
need to pay the substantial cost of what w2ont ever be used.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote
John Rumm wrote

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

**** the moaning *******s. This is good thing.

Not compulsory in all new houses it isnt.
I'm fitting sprinklers in my gaff and it's not so much to save my
life, although that's important enough; it's so that I don't have to
stand at the side of the road watching my house burn to the ground
while the local volunteer fire brigade get their act together.

You've always been welcome to do anything you like,
but you arent welcome to make everyone di it the way
you choose to do it yourself.
I don't mind clearing up some water damage - who gives a ****e about that
if the majority of the house is intact.

Those that choose to do something else in the event of a substantial fire.
and those who ensure that there cant be substantial fire and so don't
need to pay the substantial cost of what w2ont ever be used.

Take a lil bit more water with it, wodney.

Rod Speed wrote:
Cash wrote
John Rumm wrote

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

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

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

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

Just treat it as an insurance policy, and how often do you expect to claim
off your house insurance? But as you are a sensible person, you still bear
the cost of that - even though over many years, that policy is likely to
cost far more than a sprinkler installation.

We don’t mandate full fire hose hydrants in all houses either,
for the same reason.

Many householders would be to panicky during a fire to even think of using a
hydrant (even *if* they knew how to use the hose properly).

As for the builders shouting about the costs, they will recoupe these
simply by increasing the cost of their houses from eye-watering to
larcency with the extortionate profits they make on them.

The problem is that home buyers will have to pay that cost.

Or heaven forbid, the builder could reduce his profit marging by the
relatively small cost of such installation during the building process -
(because at that stage, when everything is accessible for first and second
fixing, it is a relatively small unit cost per dwelling within the larger
scheme of things).

Now if they could legislate for householders to have some training
in how a dwelling fire develops when doors are left open at night,
along with the very high temperatures created, and how to escape
from a burning building, that would be a bonus - but then the
shoutsof a "nanny state" would be very loud!

Because, again, its just not cost effective.

There we go again, cost before the actual value of something in preventing
loss of life!

We don’t even do it with car drivers and they have a lot more life
threatening accidents than we see with life threatening fires in
houses.

A very poor analogy to use, particularly as most of those "life threatening
accidents" are caused by the driver's stupidity and/or lack of skill!

Now, as most car drivers have had formal training and passed a test before
they are let-loose on the roads by themselves, in theory at least, they are
far better prepared than the average householder for any emergency - and
even if they never have an accident, they are still required to have a valid
insurance policy..


Cash

Cash wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Cash wrote
John Rumm wrote

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

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

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

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

Fraid not. There are much more cost effective ways of ensuring no loss of
life.

We don’t even mandate back to fire station alarms
in every house for a reason, and that would be much
cheaper than sprinklers in every house.

Just treat it as an insurance policy,

No thanks, because there are much cheaper insurance policys.

and how often do you expect to claim off your house insurance?

I choose not to insure my house. Essentially because
I designed it so that no fire will ever burn it down
and I know it cant be washed away in a flood etc.

But as you are a sensible person, you still bear the cost of that

I don’t actually.

- even though over many years, that policy is likely to cost far more than
a sprinkler installation.

In fact that’s bogus because people like you would have both.

We don’t mandate full fire hose hydrants in all houses either, for the
same reason.

Many householders would be to panicky during a fire to even think of using
a hydrant (even *if* they knew how to use the hose properly).

Just as true of the places where they are mandated.

As for the builders shouting about the costs, they will recoupe these
simply by increasing the cost of their houses from eye-
watering to larcency with the extortionate profits they make on them.

The problem is that home buyers will have to pay that cost.

Or heaven forbid, the builder could reduce his profit marging by the
relatively small cost of such installation during the building process -

Still not cost effective.

Neither is back to fire station alarms in every house done that way either.

(because at that stage, when everything is accessible for first and second
fixing, it is a relatively small unit cost per dwelling within the larger
scheme of things).

Now if they could legislate for householders to have some training
in how a dwelling fire develops when doors are left open at night,
along with the very high temperatures created, and how to escape
from a burning building, that would be a bonus - but then the
shoutsof a "nanny state" would be very loud!

Because, again, its just not cost effective.

There we go again, cost before the actual value of something in preventing
loss of life!

That’s how you decide what to mandate in all houses.

We don’t mandate no combustible materials in any
house for a reason, even tho that would save some lives.

We don’t ban all use of cars, even tho doing that would
certainly save some lives.

We don’t even do it with car drivers and they have a lot more life
threatening accidents than we see with life threatening fires in houses.

A very poor analogy to use,

Nope. And it isnt an analogy either.

particularly as most of those "life threatening accidents" are caused by
the driver's stupidity and/or lack of skill!

Just as true of life threatening house fires.

Now, as most car drivers have had formal training and passed a test before
they are let-loose on the roads by themselves, in theory at least, they
are far better prepared than the average householder for any emergency

Not for what to do after a life threatening accident they arent.

- and even if they never have an accident, they are still required to have
a valid insurance policy..

Which doesn’t do a damned thing about stopping someone from dying.

Rod Speed wrote:
I choose not to insure my house. Essentially because
I designed it so that no fire will ever burn it down
and I know it cant be washed away in a flood etc.

Have you also designed it so that hurricanes never occur,
that heavy rain never occurs, that scotes never chuck
bricks through your window or smash you door in.

There's a reson for the trope "if you can't afford to
insure X, you can't afford X".

JGH

jgharston wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I choose not to insure my house. Essentially because
I designed it so that no fire will ever burn it down
and I know it cant be washed away in a flood etc.

Have you also designed it so that hurricanes never occur,

We don't get hurricanes here. We don't get cyclones here either.

Yes, I designed the roof so it wont blow off and since I built
the house myself, doing almost all the work myself, it would be
a hell of a lot cheaper to just do the roof again than even a single
year's insurance.

that heavy rain never occurs,

Heavy rain does occur sometimes, but the house is designed so
that that does not result in an insurance claim and its been proven
over 40 years now that it was designed to handle heavy rain fine.

that scotes never chuck bricks through
your window or smash you door in.

It's a lot cheaper to just replace the window if that happens.

There's a reson for the trope "if you can't afford to insure X, you can't
afford X".

Its just another silly line. I only insured the new car because I
happened to find an operation that would insure it for just $100
and when its now been hiked to 3 times that, don't bother with
that insurance anymore either.

That's a separate matter to the compulsory injury insurance
which doesn't cover injury to me. If I do get injured in a car
accident, our very decent national health care system will
pay for that without me having to pay even a cent unless
I want to buy a newspaper when in hospital and I have to
do that even when I'm not in hospital. The TV in hospital is free.

On Thu, 31 May 2012 00:38:50 +0100 David WE Roberts wrote :
From the figures quoted - 36 lives out of a potential 153 - they seem
to expect nearly a quarter of the fires and consequent fatalities to
be in new builds or conversions.
I assume there is the assumption that a sprinkler system will
eliminate fires altogether?

Control, not eliminate. My understanding - I might be wrong - is that
domestic sprinklers sprinkle rather than dowse. I've got them in my
flat, but it is a 43-storey tower. If a sprinkler is set off the fire
brigade gets notified automatically - serious money fine if it's your
carelessness.

Where I do think sprinklers should be mandatory is in multi-dwelling
timber frame buildings. Do I believe that all the required fire stopping
is incorporated at the time of construction? No - and if when you do an
inspection as a BCO it's missing, what about all the work done between
inspections. Will electricians and plumbers doing later alterations pull
it out of the way if necessary, yes. Will someone who has taken a fancy
to new concealed downlights worry about making holes in the ceiling that
is meant to provide fire protection to the flat above? On a good day
perhaps.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On 31/05/12 01:43, Cash wrote:

There we go again, cost before the actual value of something in preventing
loss of life!

Cash


The more you wrap people up in cotton wool, the more cavalier they
become. We do it to children now and the real world comes as a terrible
shock. Most fires, I suspect are caused by carelessness or
irresponsibility and it should not be everyone else's responsibility to
take care of you, with the attendant additional costs - no doubt the
fire prevention industry will deem an annual inspection is essential.
Yes one life's too many, so take care of yourself, your family and your
property.

Andy C

Cash ?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?@?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.? .?.?.?.?.//.com.i
nvalid:
Rod Speed wrote:
Cash wrote
John Rumm wrote

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

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

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

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

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

--
Mike Barnes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 31/05/2012 00:31, Cash wrote:
John Rumm wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064


John,

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

That's the whole problem you don't seem to get. A lot less than £6.7m
could be spent in saving one person in other fields. Town bypasses
could be just one. I'm sure others here will come up with other
suggestions.

"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

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

That's the whole problem you don't seem to get. A lot less than £6.7m
could be spent in saving one person in other fields. Town bypasses
could be just one. I'm sure others here will come up with other
suggestions.

The DfT "value of a life" figure is around £m2 so it's easy peasey:
light more roads/junctions. (DfT were always the government leaders on
how to deal with death and injury in cost-benefit analyses because they
have to do them so often for road schemes, speed limits etc)

Cash's approach ("no price is too high....") has of course only one
logical conclusion: regulation and tax rates are increased until every
penny is being spent on keeping people alive "no matter what". So, for
example, we would all be compelled to eat the healthiest/cheapest
possible diet to maintain life while also freeing up more money to
comply with regulations and taxes. Eg building regulations for cameras
in every room (retrofitted to current stock) and taxes to pay for the
serried ranks of staff in the monitoring units to watch if someone
collapses. Then demolish houses and build flats so people live without
stairs they might fall down (bungalows being of course far to ungreen).
But I am sorry to say I doubt we'd get to the desirable step of
sterilisation for those who cannot understand the simple concepts of
(i) cost-benefit analysis and (ii) choices.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 31/05/2012 00:37, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:52:36 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:


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

**** the moaning *******s. This is good thing.
I'm fitting sprinklers in my gaff and it's not so much to save my
life, although that's important enough; it's so that I don't have to
stand at the side of the road watching my house burn to the ground
while the local volunteer fire brigade get their act together.
I don't mind clearing up some water damage - who gives a ****e about
that if the majority of the house is intact.

Having seen the speed of a fire brigade boat on a shout in Venice, it is
no surprise that you see sprinklers in so many hotels there. They make
sense wherever the response time is likely to be slow and, in America,
have been proven to be very effective at stopping the upward spread of
fire in tall buildings.

Colin Bignell

On May 31, 12:37*am, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:52:36 +0100, John Rumm

wrote:

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

**** the moaning *******s. This is good thing.
I'm fitting sprinklers in my gaff and it's not so much to save my
life, although that's important enough; it's so that I don't have to
stand at the side of the road watching my house burn to the ground
while the local volunteer fire brigade get their act together.
I don't mind clearing up some water damage - who gives a ****e about
that if the majority of the house is intact.

Our smoke detectors are very sensitive. Would sprinklers be triggered
by the same mechanism, resulting in a wet house whenever the toast is
burnt!

Jonathan

America, have been proven to be very effective at stopping the upward
spread of fire in tall buildings.

which is presumably why sprinklers are AIUI the normal means here of
complying with the BRs for new residential builds over 30m high. But in
a new build house with linked smoke alarms throughout and escape windows
upstairs I still doubt they are cost-effective.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

In article
,
Jonathan wrote:
On May 31, 12:37 am, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:52:36 +0100, John Rumm

wrote:

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

**** the moaning *******s. This is good thing.
I'm fitting sprinklers in my gaff and it's not so much to save my
life, although that's important enough; it's so that I don't have to
stand at the side of the road watching my house burn to the ground
while the local volunteer fire brigade get their act together.
I don't mind clearing up some water damage - who gives a ****e about
that if the majority of the house is intact.

Our smoke detectors are very sensitive. Would sprinklers be triggered
by the same mechanism, resulting in a wet house whenever the toast is
burnt!

The sprinklers that I have seen close up - admittedly a few years ago -
rely on the fire melting a blockage in the water line. I don't think toast
would set those off. Relying on an electrical circuit in the case of fire
would not be reliable - using electricity to hold off the sprinkers could
result in soggy houses every time here was a power failure.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 30/05/2012 23:52, John Rumm wrote:

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

Reduction in your insurance bills might well make retrofit financially
viable. It certainly does in commercial premises where their use isn't
already mandated.

Phil.

On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:28:33 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:


We don't get hurricanes here. We don't get cyclones here either.

Neither did Birmingham, till 2005.

Jonathan wrote
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote
John Rumm wrote

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

**** the moaning *******s. This is good thing.
I'm fitting sprinklers in my gaff and it's not so much to save my
life, although that's important enough; it's so that I don't have to
stand at the side of the road watching my house burn to the ground
while the local volunteer fire brigade get their act together.
I don't mind clearing up some water damage - who gives a ****e about
that if the majority of the house is intact.

Our smoke detectors are very sensitive.

Sprinklers arent.

Would sprinklers be triggered by the same mechanism,
resulting in a wet house whenever the toast is burnt!

Nope. I've worked in plenty of places with sprinklers and that doesn't
happen.

Phil wrote
John Rumm wrote

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

Reduction in your insurance bills might well make retrofit financially
viable.

Nope, they don't.

That doesn't happen with commercial buildings that do have sprinklers.

It certainly does in commercial premises where their use isn't already
mandated.

No it does not.

Jethro_uk wrote
Rod Speed wrote

We don't get hurricanes here. We don't get cyclones here either.

Neither did Birmingham, till 2005.

We wont ever get them here.

And even if we did, the house would survive them fine anyway.

On 31/05/2012 08:59, Jonathan wrote:
On May 31, 12:37 am, Grimly wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:52:36 +0100, John Rumm

wrote:

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

**** the moaning *******s. This is good thing.
I'm fitting sprinklers in my gaff and it's not so much to save my
life, although that's important enough; it's so that I don't have to
stand at the side of the road watching my house burn to the ground
while the local volunteer fire brigade get their act together.
I don't mind clearing up some water damage - who gives a ****e about
that if the majority of the house is intact.

Our smoke detectors are very sensitive. Would sprinklers be triggered
by the same mechanism, resulting in a wet house whenever the toast is
burnt!

Smoke detectors detect smoke. Sprinklers detect a high temperature at
ceiling level, using a fusible link or a liquid in a glass bulb that
boils at anything from 57C to 260C, depending upon the liquid used, and
thus breaks the glass. Most commonly seen are the red liquid glass
bulbs, which break at 68C.

Colin Bignell

On 31/05/2012 09:45, Rod Speed wrote:
Phil wrote
John Rumm wrote

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

Reduction in your insurance bills might well make retrofit financially
viable.

Nope, they don't.

That doesn't happen with commercial buildings that do have sprinklers.

It certainly does in commercial premises where their use isn't already
mandated.

No it does not.
B****ks , you know nowt.

On 31/05/2012 09:52, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Phil wrote:

On 30/05/2012 23:52, John Rumm wrote:

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

Reduction in your insurance bills might well make retrofit financially
viable. It certainly does in commercial premises where their use isn't
already mandated.

When one sprinkler goes off, do they all go at the same time? Am I going
to have all my possessions everywhere in the house soaked because
SWMBO's doing soss in the oven? (The kitchen smoke detector goes off
each time she does this.) Or if I accidentally biff one while carrying a
ladder? And how do you turn them off once its clear that the danger is
over?

JOOI I assume that they would be installed in a kitchen. It is probably
the obvious place. But the consequences of a water based sprinkler going
off over a chip pan fire (the most common kitchen fire?) could be worse
than not having one. We have all been trained to cover the fire rather
than throw water over it.

On May 31, 9:47*am, "Rod Speed" wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote

Rod Speed wrote
We don't get hurricanes here. We don't get cyclones here either.
Neither did Birmingham, till 2005.

We wont ever get them here.

And even if we did, the house would survive them fine anyway.

Some diyers are able to repair the expected damage from any of the
usual risks. For anyone able to, the expected cost of repairs times
the probability of the happening is vastly cheaper than insurance.


NT

On Thu, 31 May 2012 00:59:40 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan wrote:

Our smoke detectors are very sensitive. Would sprinklers be triggered
by the same mechanism, resulting in a wet house whenever the toast is
burnt!

Unlikely. They are a small glass bubble holding the water back, this
bubble is full of a liquid that expands when it gets hot shattering
the bubble and thus letting the water out. From the films I've seen
of commercial sprinkler systems the fire has to be quite large (in
domestic terms) before they go off and when they do it will be new
furnishing and decorating for at least that room. Possibly
replastering and new floor as well if it's chipboard...

http://www.staysafeuk.com/domestic-sprinklers.html

"... activate within four minutes ..."
"... about 150 liters/min ..."

A domestic fire will have quite a hold within four minutes, there
will be a lot of smoke about. A typical smoke alarm will have gone
off a lot earlier to alert any occupants to "Get Out, Stay Out, Get
the Brigade out". Buildings and contents can be replaced you don't
need to "save" them. Educating people to have a "fire plan" and to
get the F out when the alarm sounds be that in the home or work
place.

150l is a large bath full of water, every minute... I wonder where
this water comes from? Most domestic supplies can't deliver that sort
of flow, so how effective at extinguishing a fire large enough to
trigger the sprinkler is a domestic sprinkler?

One also assumes that these sprinkler systems will have an external
water flow driven bell and a link to a service centre that can call
the Fire Brigade out. If you did have a fire that triggered the
sprinklers just after you gone on your two weeks to Malaga, without
such systems there wouldn't be much, possibly no, indication that the
inside is being drenched....

Then of course how vulnerable will they be to being knocked?
Sprinklers are normally installed high up not the relatively low 8'
ceiling of a house.

Strikes me of politicians/bureaucrats reacting to "some one died"
with "we must do something". Personally linked smoke/heat alarms are
enough, along with decent public education. That would have far
greater benefit to society but far harder to measure so the
bureaucrats won't like it as they can't justify their existence.

Do any of the Fire Services still have the chip pan fire demo
vehicles that they used to take around Fetes, Gala Days and County
Shows? It's no use telling people how to safely deal with a chip pan
fire it'll just go in one ear and out the other. Show 'em, in quite
dramatic terms, what happens when you do it wrong. OK I guess the
open chip pan is getting to be a thing of the past these days but it
will still highlight the dangers of fire. Most people these days do
not have any real experience of fire, most homes no longer have open
fires, people don't have bonfires to dispose of waste (garden or
otherwise), kids don't make camp fires.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On May 31, 8:30*am, "Robin" wrote:
That's the whole problem you don't seem to get. *A lot less than £6..7m
could be spent in saving one person in other fields. *Town bypasses
could be just one. *I'm sure others here will come up with other
suggestions.

The DfT "value of a life" figure is around £m2 so it's easy peasey:
light more roads/junctions. *(DfT were always the government leaders on
how to deal with death and injury in cost-benefit analyses because they
have to do them so often for road schemes, speed limits etc)

Cash's approach ("no price is too high....") has of course only one
logical conclusion: regulation and tax rates are increased until *every
penny is being spent on keeping people alive "no matter what". *So, for
example, we would all be compelled to eat the healthiest/cheapest
possible diet to maintain life while also freeing up more money to
comply with regulations and *taxes. *Eg building regulations for cameras
in every room (retrofitted to current stock) and taxes to pay for the
serried ranks of staff in the monitoring units to watch if someone
collapses. Then demolish houses and build flats so people live without
stairs they might fall down (bungalows being of course far to ungreen).
But I am sorry to say I doubt we'd get to the desirable step of
sterilisation for those who cannot understand *the simple concepts of
(i) cost-benefit analysis and (ii) choices.


Actually the consequences of financial foolishness are worse than
that. The NHS has a budget of about £10k per qaly, so each 6.7 million
spent saving one life with sprinklers eats up enough resources to save
670 lives. In that particular example, the money sources are to an
extent different, but when it comes down to household budget and
safety, there are plenty of things that could be done with that
6.7million that would save many more lives.


NT

On Thu, 31 May 2012 09:27:56 +0100, Phil wrote:

Reduction in your insurance bills might well make retrofit financially
viable.

Except that an accidental activation will cost similar amounts to a
small flood to replace/repair the damage. A fire large enough to
trigger the sprinklers will still require at least that room to be
stripped and rebuilt and the rest of the house will have smoke
damage.

It certainly does in commercial premises where their use isn't already
mandated.

Commercial is different, sprinklers have their place where early
control of a fire is important. Warehouses, places packed with lots
of flammable materials (in the broadest sense), tall buildings where
escape from upper floors isn't possible by "climbing down the knotted
sheets" or jumping.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Jethro_uk wrote
Rod Speed wrote

We don't get hurricanes here. We don't get cyclones here either.

Neither did Birmingham, till 2005.

We wont ever get them here.
And even if we did, the house would survive them fine anyway.

Hilarious. LMFAO.

On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:52:36 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:


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


Very cheap and easy to implement, just employ Dribble as the plumber
and surface fit all pipework to the ceilings.

Of course you would need to supply a hacksaw...


--

On 31/05/12 09:59, Andrew May wrote:

But the consequences of a water based sprinkler going
off over a chip pan fire (the most common kitchen fire?) could be worse
than not having one. We have all been trained to cover the fire rather
than throw water over it.


Don't worry. Chip pans in the home are going to banned under the planned
'Limitation of individual calorie intake to limit obesity' regulation.


Andy C