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.

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).

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

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

Andy Cap wrote:
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.

I don't wrap the gf's 8 year lad up in cotton wool. However I see the shock
with the 17/18 year old apprentices I work with when they enter the real
world.

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.

Indeed.

--
Adam

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 May 31, 1:43*am, "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!

SO lets say 1,000,000 dwellings fitted with sprinkler systems at a
cost of £1,000 each.

£1,000,000,000 to save one life?

No, it's simply not cost effective compared to alternative uses for
the money.

MBQ

In message , Cash
?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?@?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.? .?.?.?.?.//.com.invalid
writes
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.
Snip
My house is over 30 years old, although I still think of it as modern.
I I had had a sprinkler system installed when built it would not have
been used to date.
How would I test it to see if it was still in working order?
--
hugh

hugh ] 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!

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.

My house is over 30 years old, although I still think of it as modern.

Mine is over 40 years old and I do too.

I I had had a sprinkler system installed when built it would not have been
used to date.

Mine too.

How would I test it to see if it was still in working order?

Not really necessary to test it if its supplied with mains pressure water.

If it isnt, just check that the water supply is still there for it.

No need to best the sprinkler heads. That isnt
done with commercial sprinkler systems.

In message , Rod Speed
wrote

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

You will not be able to get house/building insurance without a sprinkler
system - an it will have to be maintained on an annual basis by a
"professional" organisation.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Alan wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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

You will not be able to get house/building
insurance without a sprinkler system

Don't believe that. That hasn't happened with back
to base alarms or with fire extinguishers in cars either.

- an it will have to be maintained on an
annual basis by a "professional" organisation.

Don't believe that either, that hasn't happened with alarms
or with the electrical or water or gas supply either.

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.

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 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

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.


I think you have overlooked that a "qaly" is a year, not a life so you
need to multiply by average life expectancy of those saved. And NICE
now use £20~30,000:
http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/feat...stheqaly. jsp
So it works out around the same as the DfT figures - not surprisingly as
officials do try to maintain a degree of consistency on such things
(despite the pressures on their political masters to jerk knees when the
media are baying).

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

In message , Robin writes
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)
Snip
Story was that Ford looked at the frequency of deaths with the Pinto
caused by rear end shunts splitting the petrol tank and decided it was
cheaper to carry on paying out compensation than rectify the problem.
Now that is cost-benefit analysis!!
--
hugh

On 31/05/2012 23:00, hugh wrote:
In message , Robin writes
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)
Snip
Story was that Ford looked at the frequency of deaths with the Pinto
caused by rear end shunts splitting the petrol tank and decided it was
cheaper to carry on paying out compensation than rectify the problem.
Now that is cost-benefit analysis!!

They were right too, but the court didn't see it that way and applied
punitive damages against the manufacturer for its callous beancouting.

You will also find that we pay insanely high premiums to make already
incredibly safe methods of mass transport like trains and air travel
safer still whilst ignoring the piecemeal carnage on our roads.

The thing is that plane and train crashes make big news stories whereas
another dozen or so dying every day in car crashes isn't even news
unless they do mass suicide in fog by driving nose to tail at 70+.

About 100x more people die every year in car crashes than in trains or
planes and even if you express it as deaths per billion passenger miles
the car is still almost an order of magnitude more dangerous.

Stats for the UK are available online at:
http://www.igreens.org.uk/uk_rail_accident_deaths.htm

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

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. 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 sums don't add up though. At £6m per life saved there are far better
ways to keep people safer in their own homes. DIYers feature high among
the casualty list for self inflicted injuries for instance.

Fire alarms are very cheap and if the objective is to save lives then
*they* should be the first priority. Or innovative alarms that use cell
phone technology to call for help if a fire is detected. Teaching people
to close doors downstairs at night would go a long way towards
controlling the risk by slowing the spread of fire and smoke.

Sprinklers in a domestic setting will just lead to a false sense of
security unless they are regularly maintained. It isn't unreasonable to
require every household to own and maintain a current CO2 or dry powder
extinguisher for instance. Local councils could provide basic fire
training as beginners aim too high missing the root of the flames.

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).

Anyone who has been on a serious fire safety course has a pretty good
feel for how fire behaves in the large. Untrained people tend to get
themselves into big trouble - especially if a flashover occurs.

I was taught that water based extinguishers were mostly useful for
breaking down locked doors. The fire brigade do a nice demo of how not
to tackle a kitchen chip pan fire in mobile vans before they show how to
do it right. These days because of health and safety they have to tell
people to just close the door and ring 999 for expert help.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In message , Terry Fields
wrote

Martin Brown wrote:

It isn't unreasonable to
require every household to own and maintain a current CO2 or dry powder
extinguisher for instance. Local councils could provide basic fire
training as beginners aim too high missing the root of the flames.


Then the greenies came along and wouldn't let petrol be burned, or CO2
extinguishers be discharged, and it all went to sleep-inducing
lectures instead.


These days the advice is NOT to fight the fire but remove yourself from
the danger as fast as possible.

One reason why most car extinguishers would be more dangerous than
running away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIngnxr-w4

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article , Alan
scribeth thus
In message , Terry Fields
wrote

Martin Brown wrote:

It isn't unreasonable to
require every household to own and maintain a current CO2 or dry powder
extinguisher for instance. Local councils could provide basic fire
training as beginners aim too high missing the root of the flames.


Then the greenies came along and wouldn't let petrol be burned, or CO2
extinguishers be discharged, and it all went to sleep-inducing
lectures instead.


These days the advice is NOT to fight the fire but remove yourself from
the danger as fast as possible.

One reason why most car extinguishers would be more dangerous than
running away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIngnxr-w4



That is amazing. Using water on a fire that is in effect a mobile bomb?.

Whyever don't they have an airport style foam tender alongside the
track?.

And permitting marshals to fight the fire using only normal i.e. non
fireproof clothing?...


--
Tony Sayer

In message , tony sayer
wrote

That is amazing. Using water on a fire that is in effect a mobile
bomb?.

I doubt if it was water. The fire fighting will have been geared to the
event and car fuel fires. There may have also been some driver error as
there should have been a shut off mechanism to stop the fuel leaving the
fuel tank.

And permitting marshals to fight the fire using only normal i.e. non
fireproof clothing?...

All the people fighting the fire were in fireproof clothing, as was the
driver of the car. The first two marshals at the scene also wear
fireproof balaclavas when the cars are running more exotic fuels.

The main fire fighting vehicles are down the other end of the track
(quarter of a mile away) where there is more of a chance of an engine
letting go at 300+ miles per hour. (the car in the video probably
accelerates to 200+ mph in around 6.5 seconds).

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 21:41:03 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIngnxr-w4



That is amazing. Using water on a fire that is in effect a mobile bomb?.

Very tiny fuel tank on those.

Whyever don't they have an airport style foam tender alongside the
track?.

Didn't you see it? Got there too late, in any case.

And permitting marshals to fight the fire using only normal i.e. non
fireproof clothing?...

That's a valid point, but waiting around while Nomex-clad marshals
turn up might be a bit on the long side. Given that the majority of
marshals are volunteers, and all different shapes and sizes, who would
provide the Nomex? I would hope that the Pod and other venues would
have sufficient funds to Nomex-equip all of its marshalling staff, but
I wouldn't hold my breath. The alternative is for all marshals to buy
their own kit and that would be quite prohibitive for many of them.

Terry Fields wrote:


Martin Brown wrote:

It isn't unreasonable to
require every household to own and maintain a current CO2 or dry powder
extinguisher for instance. Local councils could provide basic fire
training as beginners aim too high missing the root of the flames.

I used to work at an organisation that was very keen on safety,
including fire safety.

They used to light a large tray of petrol, and get to put it out with
a CO2 extinguisher, including trying it with one that had ho horn
(which was spectacular).

Then the greenies came along and wouldn't let petrol be burned, or CO2
extinguishers be discharged, and it all went to sleep-inducing
lectures instead.

Terry Fields

One of the Unis in London runs excellent courses - but as you say, petrol is
frowned upon. So they have these nifty burners that pass gas through water
and burn it on top - in a variety of metal boxes that emulate liquite fires,
bin fires and others.

Seems to work quite well as it actually proves quite hard to put out the
"liquid" fire - needed a concerted sweep with a major portion of a CO2
extinguisher to achieve.
--
Tim Watts

In message , Tim Watts
writes
Terry Fields wrote:


Martin Brown wrote:

It isn't unreasonable to
require every household to own and maintain a current CO2 or dry powder
extinguisher for instance. Local councils could provide basic fire
training as beginners aim too high missing the root of the flames.

I used to work at an organisation that was very keen on safety,
including fire safety.

They used to light a large tray of petrol, and get to put it out with
a CO2 extinguisher, including trying it with one that had ho horn
(which was spectacular).

Then the greenies came along and wouldn't let petrol be burned, or CO2
extinguishers be discharged, and it all went to sleep-inducing
lectures instead.

Terry Fields

One of the Unis in London runs excellent courses - but as you say, petrol is
frowned upon. So they have these nifty burners that pass gas through water
and burn it on top - in a variety of metal boxes that emulate liquite fires,
bin fires and others.

Seems to work quite well as it actually proves quite hard to put out the
"liquid" fire - needed a concerted sweep with a major portion of a CO2
extinguisher to achieve.

I thought foam was best for oil fires.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:

In message , Tim Watts
writes
Terry Fields wrote:


Martin Brown wrote:

It isn't unreasonable to
require every household to own and maintain a current CO2 or dry powder
extinguisher for instance. Local councils could provide basic fire
training as beginners aim too high missing the root of the flames.

I used to work at an organisation that was very keen on safety,
including fire safety.

They used to light a large tray of petrol, and get to put it out with
a CO2 extinguisher, including trying it with one that had ho horn
(which was spectacular).

Then the greenies came along and wouldn't let petrol be burned, or CO2
extinguishers be discharged, and it all went to sleep-inducing
lectures instead.

Terry Fields

One of the Unis in London runs excellent courses - but as you say, petrol
is frowned upon. So they have these nifty burners that pass gas through
water and burn it on top - in a variety of metal boxes that emulate
liquite fires, bin fires and others.

Seems to work quite well as it actually proves quite hard to put out the
"liquid" fire - needed a concerted sweep with a major portion of a CO2
extinguisher to achieve.

I thought foam was best for oil fires.

I believe that is the case - but the fire officer got us to try all types
with all fire types to see what the differences were. CO2 was a *lot* of fun


--
Tim Watts

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

Good idea? perhaps - and in some circumstances. As a mandate however I
am not convinced.

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

That is a much harder call. The moment you mandate something like this
in the building regs you are in effect spending a huge amount of money,
and need to decide if the the return on that spending justifies it.

There are parallels here with part P, where the RIA claimed
implementation costs around £0.5bn annually for an expected reduction of
deaths of around 20%. Given would be 2 lives per year, it was a cost
of £250M/life saved. (the reality being an increase in the number of
deaths it seems)

these simply by increasing the cost of their houses from eye-watering to
larcency with the extortionate profits they make on them.

The house builders are having to set prices to compete with existing
stock that does not have this equipment fitted though...

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!

Insurers could offer discounts to clients able to produce a certificate
of training though...

[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).

Quite agree.


All the best

Cash

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

Always interesting to have your perspective.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 31/05/2012 14:09, John Rumm wrote:

The house builders are having to set prices to compete with existing
stock that does not have this equipment fitted though...

Do you have any evidence that it works that way. I would have thought
that existing stock would be priced to compete with new build, not the
other way around.

If fact, much as I think that sprinklers it sounds like a silly idea I
am not convinced that it will add to the final cost of the house. What
someone is prepared to pay is pretty much dependent on what they can
afford. So, if you put the cost of construction up and the builder
maintains their profit margin the only thing that can give is the cost
of the land. Builders will simply be prepared to pay less and since the
new regs apply to all builders no-one will be prepared to pay any more
and the seller will sell for less since there is no alternative use that
will give a greater return.

On 31/05/2012 14:29, Andrew May wrote:
On 31/05/2012 14:09, John Rumm wrote:

The house builders are having to set prices to compete with existing
stock that does not have this equipment fitted though...

Do you have any evidence that it works that way. I would have thought
that existing stock would be priced to compete with new build, not the
other way around.

Most houses are priced by agents based on "comparables" i.e. they look
at what similar local stuff has sold for recently. So in an area where
they majority of the town is newbuilt, then that is what the comparison
will be with. For most established towns however its more likely the
comparable properties will be existing stock.

If fact, much as I think that sprinklers it sounds like a silly idea I
am not convinced that it will add to the final cost of the house. What
someone is prepared to pay is pretty much dependent on what they can
afford. So, if you put the cost of construction up and the builder
maintains their profit margin the only thing that can give is the cost
of the land. Builders will simply be prepared to pay less and since the
new regs apply to all builders no-one will be prepared to pay any more
and the seller will sell for less since there is no alternative use that
will give a greater return.

As with any complex system these things are difficult to analyse and
predict. The effects are probably unknowable long term without actually
trying it. However the builders would probably suffer a bit short term
until the system as a whole sorts it out.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Andrew May wrote
John Rumm wrote

The house builders are having to set prices to compete with existing
stock that does not have this equipment fitted though...

Do you have any evidence that it works that way. I would have thought that
existing stock would be priced to compete with new build, not the other
way around.

It doesn't really work either way. You can get quite significant
variations in the ratio between new build and existing stock
prices, essentially depending on how tight the housing market is.

Can be very dramatic indeed in very unusual situations like
the current US market where there is a great raft of unsellable
occupied property that has seen hordes default on their
mortgages and who have been kicked out because they have.

That can even see places deliberately demolished at times,
essentially because they can become crack houses etc.

If fact, much as I think that sprinklers it sounds like a silly idea I am
not convinced that it will add to the final cost of the house.

Corse it has to when it costs more than not having sprinklers.

That money has to come from somewhere.

What someone is prepared to pay is pretty much dependent on what they can
afford.

That's not really true either. When the cost of the house
is higher, you will in fact see some not able to borrow
to buy even the lowest priced house and the price of
the lowest priced house will have to be higher because
of the cost of the sprinklers.

So, if you put the cost of construction up and the builder maintains their
profit margin the only thing that can give is the cost of the land.

That's not right either. You will in fact just see some no
longer able to borrow to buy the lowest priced houses.

Builders will simply be prepared to pay less

They don't get any say on the price of land.

and since the new regs apply to all builders no-one will be prepared to
pay any more and the seller will sell for less since there is no
alternative use that will give a greater return.

Real markets don't work like that.

"Cash" wrote in message ...

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).

How much does such a system cost to retro-fit to an existing, say, 4-bed
house?
Did your house/flat come with a system, or did you add one later?

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.

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.