# See Ya In COURT !!!



## forensics (Mar 13, 2011)

I hate to break it to yall but the sprinkler issue is headed to a new arena

This is where it will be finished

Ya better continue to get ready to install sprinklers in new houses !

Reprint from the Jan 2011 issue of  PM Engineer

The Engineering Dilemma

As of Jan. 1, the 2009 International Residential Code mandates residential fire sprinklers in all one- and two-family dwellings. Photo courtesy of Uponor

by Julius Ballanco, P.E., CPD

Posted: January 1, 2011

There is no excuse not to include residential fire sprinklers in your designs.

Happy New Year! With the ringing in of Jan. 1, 2011, all of us in the engineering profession have been presented with a dilemma. I should indicate that this dilemma extends to architects, as well. You may be wondering what the concern is.

On Jan. 1, the 2009 ICC International Residential Code mandates residential sprinklers in all one- and two-family dwellings. The IRC had already mandated residential sprinklers in townhouses.

Prior to Jan. 1, the ICC International Building Code required sprinkler protection in all residential buildings. Furthermore, NFPA 5000 has always required all residential buildings to be protected with a residential sprinkler system.

The next edition of the IRC will be the 2012 edition. That is scheduled for publication later this year. The 2012 edition of the IRC also mandates residential sprinklers for all one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses.

As professional engineers, our first obligation is to the public, not our client. We are also required to follow accepted engineering practice. Accepted engineering practice means we have to follow the guidelines produced and developed by our industry. That includes the IRC, IBC and NFPA 5000.

What all this means is that from this day forward if you are involved in the design of systems in any one- or two-family dwelling or townhouse, you need to include a residential sprinkler system.

If you do not, you are jeopardizing your engineering license by not upholding your first obligation to protect the public, plus not upholding your obligations to follow accepted engineering practice.

The builder may not follow your plans. He may choose not to install the residential sprinkler system, but that is OK. You did your duty by showing the system on the plans.

The liability shifts to the builder if he chooses not to install the residential sprinkler system. I plan to also cover my bases by sending a letter to the builder or developer indicating that sprinklers are required.

Some Disagree

I was speaking to an engineering colleague last week regarding this very issue. He disagrees with me, saying that if the state or local politicians delete the sprinkler requirements from the code, the engineer has no obligation to design the system. There is no denying that the various state home builders’ associations have been spending millions lobbying their politicians to have the requirement removed from the adoption of the 2009 IRC.

Just because politicians do something that many of us consider stupid, it does not reduce the liability of professional engineers to do what they are charged to do.

In other words, we must protect the public.

I cannot fathom how any engineer could declare that residential sprinklers do not protect the public.

Litigation Waiting To Happen

I am sure some, or many, smart attorneys are just waiting in the wings for the first fire death in a home built after Jan. 1, 2011. I hate to say it, but it will unfortunately have to involve a fire death. With around 3,000 fire deaths a year in residential buildings, it won’t take long for a test case.

Having been involved in a number of lawsuits as an expert witness, I can envision the questions the attorney would ask.

Question: Mr. Ballanco, doesn’t the 2009 IRC require all one- and two-family dwellings to be sprinklered after Jan. 1, 2011?

Answer: Yes, but that section was stricken from the IRC when it was adopted by the state.

Question: Oh, so politicians receiving money from the home builder lobbyists voted to strike the sprinkler requirement, is that correct?

Answer: Yes.

Question: So, you just followed what the politicians adopted for protection of the single-family dwelling?

Answer: Yes, that is all that is required. We just have to follow the adopted code.

Question: You don’t have any obligation beyond following the code?

Answer: No.

Question: What is the requirement in your engineering licensing law whereby you have the obligation to protect the public?

Answer: That is true. We do that by following the code.

Question: But you didn’t follow the code. You followed what the politicians, receiving funding from home builder lobbyists, changed in the code, didn’t you?

Answer: The code is what the elected officials enact. It did not require residential sprinklers. That is what I followed.

Question: But the code, without amendments, developed by your profession, would require sprinklers for this home, wouldn’t it?

Answer: Yes, but I am not obligated to follow that code.

Question: If sprinklers were installed in this home, would there have been a fire death?

Answer: I don’t know.

Question: You don’t know, but you are an engineer. Shouldn’t you know?

Answer: Every fire is different.

Question: Has there ever been a fire death in a home, with sprinklers, experiencing the same fire as this home?

Answer: Not that I know of.

Question: So you just ignored your obligation as a licensed professional engineer to protect the public?

Include Sprinklers In Your Designs

That last question is what attorneys call a “got ya” question. How do you answer the question? If you have a good answer, then there shouldn’t be a problem with designing plumbing and mechanical systems in residential buildings and homes without including a residential sprinkler system.

If you are like me, you will be including a residential sprinkler system in residential buildings that you design. I know that residential sprinklers will protect the occupants of any residential building.

I also know that there will not be any fire deaths that will result in a trial.

Hence, I don’t fear any such line of questioning, because it will never occur.

Starting today, you should reduce your liability by providing a sprinkler system design for every residential building you design.

After all, that is what the documents that we develop require.

I am not going to leave my fate to some politician who doesn’t know a thing about construction safety.

Julius Ballanco, P.E., CPD

jbengineer@aol.com

Julius Ballanco, P.E., is Editorial Director of PM Engineer and president of J.B. Engineering and Code Consulting, P.C. in Munster, IN. Prior to starting J.B. Engineering, he served as head of plumbing and mechanical engineering for Building Officials and Code Administrators International, one of the organizations that formed the International Code Council (ICC). His engineering consulting work includes the design of plumbing, mechanical and fire-protection systems; forensic engineering; training; and serving numerous manufacturers in different capacities. In addition, Ballanco is the current president of ASPE and a member of both ICC and IAPMO. He can be reached by e-mail at jbengineer@aol.com.


----------



## Yankee (Mar 13, 2011)

I don't disagree that the homebuilder's association is pushing hard to remove sprinklers, but I DO take exception to your statement that the code is adopted in the States by a body of politicians that have no clue and also the deciding body is getting bribed. Some states have boards that adopt the codes and the boards contain people experienced in construction including fire protection engineers and the fire services.


----------



## GHRoberts (Mar 13, 2011)

"As professional engineers, our first obligation is to the public, not our client. We are also required to follow accepted engineering practice. Accepted engineering practice means we have to follow the guidelines produced and developed by our industry. That includes the IRC, IBC and NFPA 5000."

I will disagree. One cannot serve two masters. The one who pays me gets my service. They also get the services provided by my insurer.

Since the IRC and IBC and NFPA seem to change their views from time to time, they do not seem to reflect accepted engineering practice. If I have the right to believe their prescriptions are "not safe enough," I also have the right to believe that they are "too safe."

The comments by Julius Ballanco are as self-serving as those of any other publicist.


----------



## GBrackins (Mar 13, 2011)

I agree with GHRoberts. If we were designing schools based upon Mr Ballanco then should we design them with metal detectors at every means of egress and issue bullet proof vests to all that enter? The argument could be made in a "court of law" that we knew that such events do occur in schools and should have used due care in the execution of our profession.

He seems to forget that not all states have adopted the same building codes. Massachusetts for instance just adopted the 2009 IRC for residential construction *WITH* Massachusetts Amendments that make changes to the IRC. The IRC in itself is a consensus standard until adopted by a legal governing body that gives it the weight of law.

We design based upon the codes and regulations that affect the project, along with good engineering practices, with everything being balanced with the needs and budget of our client. We can design a home to withstand a tornado, but what if your area does not suffer from tornados?

At least that is my humble opinion.


----------



## incognito (Mar 14, 2011)

See Ya in court. Laughable at best. Obviously the author resides behind a desk and is out of touch with the real world. You only have to research how many communities have amended the stair geometry from 7 3/4r x 10 td to realize NOBODY will be sued over NOT requiring installation of residential sprinklers. Once again hollow scare tactics from desperate losers.


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Mar 14, 2011)

As a Fire Protection Engineer I find that I can not fully agree with either side of this discussion.



In the design of any building (commercial or residential) I know that I must follow a standard of care (Due Diligence).  The design shall consider the regulatory requirements as adopted by law.  The design should also include peer documents that are not regulatory, but provide additional considerations.  Lastly, I should consider good fire protection practices.

If I completed a residential design and I did not include sprinkler protection and that decision followed the standard of care, I could stand up in court and support that conclusion.

However, I do that with the knowledge that the other side will have a professional expert with a different opinion.

I have provided technical expert consultation to law firms on building construction defect issues and lined up against other technical expert consultants.

In my design and oversight of construction projects I consider:

1.     Regulatory Requirements

2.     Peer Documentation that additional useful value in regards to the subject matter.

3.     Good Engineering Practices

I do these things because an Engineer is supposed to do more than simply putting together a design (cad work).  An engineer is supposed to know the basis and the intent of the design.  To that end I know the following:

·         Smoke Detectors/Alarms are the primary method of notification to building occupants of a fire condition.  Smoke Detectors do not normally provide a method of suppression (unless connected to a suppression system).

·         Fire Sprinkler Systems are normally used for the protection of property, and in some cases for the safe egress of building occupants (residential), sprinkler systems are not designed to notify occupants of a fire.

·         The use of both smoke detectors and sprinkler systems provide the most substantial coverage for notification, egress protection and suppression.

As an engineer I perform a function for my client, with the understanding that if my client were fully knowledgeable in the design basis then my client would not need me.  If my client were to ask me to remove any building element that served to protect my client, I would be duty bound to discuss the issue with my client.  If at the point where the client did not care or simply did not want the building element, then I would have to decide if I wanted to continue to provide service. I might also ask for a signed waiver to demonstrate that I had properly advised the client.

As a Fire Protection Engineer I may be sitting across the court room in your trial discussing Due Diligence.  In my testimony I will rely on those items (1-3) listed above in regard to the design.  I will also consider the facts listed above.  Then a jury of your peers will decide what they believe.  It could go either way.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 14, 2011)

FYI, the author co-authored the P2904 section.......


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 14, 2011)

Sounds like cottage industry similar to a professional expert witness purporting that any stair that is not EXACTLY 7-11 is death waiting to happen.


----------



## incognito (Mar 14, 2011)

All you engineers and architects better start paying more attention to stair geometry. After all 7/11 is recognized as a safer standard than 7 3/4 x 10. Think I'll go find me an ambulance chaser and a "dangerous" stairway or two. Early retirement here I come!! Not.


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 14, 2011)

All stair statistic are based upon a range of shoe sizes.  My 14's are well outside the norm, but I manage to safety use stairs, 7-11 or not.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 14, 2011)

Architects and engineers should sleep well if they have complied with the building code requirements adopted by their local and where more restrictive the requirements of their client.


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 14, 2011)

*FBG,*

Trying to stay out of this cuz anyone who know me knows where I stand but that was pure poetry....beautiful.


----------



## incognito (Mar 14, 2011)

A professional designer is supposed to complete a desisn that meets MINIMUM code requirements unless instructed by his client to exceed the MINIMUM requirements. To do otherwise is doing nothing more than increasing the cost of the project and the funding for the PD's 401(k).


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Mar 14, 2011)

FM, Thanks

Incognito,

I do not know if you are a designer or if you have ever worked with the requirements for Licensing Engineers and Architects.  I am a P.E. and I have studied the Licensing laws in a number of states.  I do not know where you got your requirement for designers to meet the minimun code as the only requirement, perhaps you could enlighten us with the specific regulatory statement.


----------



## High Desert (Mar 14, 2011)

Oregon has a min-maxi code. They only have to design to the minimum in Oregon. Scare tactics at its best.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 14, 2011)

I am a licensed engineer and I have read the state laws related to the practice of engineering.

The state can only enforce those regulations that have been formally adopted.

When dealing with issues of negligence the courts take the position that the state or local jurisdiction, when adopting the building code, have made the decision how to blance the competing interests.  There may be exemptions but they would be when the adopted regulations were much lower than the model codes even without residential fire sprinklers.

Admittedly a professional society could sanction you for whatever they wish but I do not see it has happening if you did not require residential fire sprinklers when not mandated by law and if they did so you can easily ignore their sanction.

As for the argument that you have a moral obligation to install residential fire sprinklers well that is between yourself and your deity.


----------



## forensics (Mar 15, 2011)

Here in SC the 2009 IRC was adopted therefore  it IS the adopted code

The problem is that our legislature was bought off by the SC HBA (to the tune of $400,000.00) and they bowed to the SC HBA by amending the code section of the law to specifically state that "no local code official CAN REQUIRE residential sprinklers.

They did not change the fact that the duely adopted code still requires residential sprinklers.

The legislature did not give "professional liability relief" to those who elect build substandard homes and the state that has the most vunerable law rewrite and the strongest code adoption will be ground zero for the landmark case that awards huge damages against the builder and possibly the HBA for 1) Failing to build to the adopted code and 2) Intentionally diseminating information that they knew was false to their membership who in turn used that information to make decisions that resulted in death to their homebuyer client and damages to their building business.

You can bet the sprinkler advocates will take the argument to a small builder who is unable to defend himself against the NFSA, AFSA and numerous other sprinkler advocates that can well afford the fight. That decision will be used to set the presedent to take on the production builders. If the local builder is crushed the production guys probably will not take the chance...but we will all just have to wait and see.

Just a thought ... How much choice does the second purchaser of a home have and what is the responsibility of the designer and builder to that family (the public)?

Incognito ... have you ever considered getting some help with your unresolved anger issues SHEESH!


----------



## bgingras (Mar 15, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> I don't disagree that the homebuilder's association is pushing hard to remove sprinklers, but I DO take exception to your statement that the code is adopted in the States by a body of politicians that have no clue and also the deciding body is getting bribed. Some states have boards that adopt the codes and the boards contain people experienced in construction including fire protection engineers and the fire services.


MA has  the BBRS, mostly independant that looks at and ammends(sometimes hacks up) the code before adoption. No sprinklers here.


----------



## forensics (Mar 15, 2011)

bgingras

We have a simular set up here too. We have a Building Codes Council who amends and adopts the current codes through a process that allows input from any and all parties who have interest in the industry.

The SC BCC also considers each proposed amandment and then votes on each and every proposal making the process a tedious but effective process that serves the code officials and the pubic well as well as the builders.

That SC BCC is comprised of a panel of 12 of so industry professionals who are well schyooled in both the practical and conceptual aspects of the codes being considered.

That panel and council adopted the RFS provisions after hearing all the evidence and facts for all sides of the issue but the legislature then responded to the $400,000 plus in "campaign contributions" by writing a loophole law to circumvent the code and overide the experts in the field.

The most vocal opponent of the sprinkler implemintation was censured by the ethics committee in our SC Senate for "exceeding the allowable limits" of campaign contributions from guess who!  THE SC HBA !

SHEESH!


----------



## texasbo (Mar 15, 2011)

forensics said:
			
		

> Just a thought ... How much choice does the second purchaser of a home have and what is the responsibility of the designer and builder to that family (the public)?Incognito ... have you ever considered getting some help with your unresolved anger issues SHEESH!


I took the liberty of editing out most of the rambling, irrelevant wall of words that you wrote.

However, I will respond to your question. The second purchaser has exactly the same choice as the first; they can buy or not buy.

Anger issues? Are you kidding me? You are the one who came in hurling adversarial and insulting comments. You are a troll. I don't know what the hell you're accusing incognito of; it's you who clearly has some serious issues.


----------



## GHRoberts (Mar 15, 2011)

forensics said:
			
		

> bgingrasWe have a simular set up here too. We have a Building Codes Council who amends and adopts the current codes through a process that allows input from any and all parties who have interest in the industry.
> 
> The SC BCC also considers each proposed amandment and then votes on each and every proposal making the process a tedious but effective process that serves the code officials and the pubic well as well as the builders.
> 
> ...


 It appears you are unhappy with the outcome of legislation. I would suggest that you spend some time looking into how you can influence legislation.

---

My wife is a licensed professional in a non-construction field. Each year she goes to her professions state regulatory board's meeting and explains why she is opposed to changes in the profession's regulations. She spends a full day for her 10 minutes of speaking time.

One of her clients was a legislator (term limited out of office). This client used to send my wife copies of legislation (written by the state regulating board) that affected her profession. She would comment on how the legislation affected her profession in general (never her in particular). The client had enough power in the legislature that my wife's unbiased comments tended to affect the legislation.

Because of her action before the governing board my wife is well enough known that newspapers and TV stations call on her for information and opinion.

I would suggest anyone who thinks that legislation is adversely affecting the safety of our homes and businesses should provide rational and unbiased information to anyone who has the power to make or stop changes. Make a lot of rational noise.


----------



## Jobsaver (Mar 15, 2011)

The premise of the argument made in the OP is ridiculous and abusive. Building and fire safety codes are still essentially regional, by state adoption, under our system of law.

Mr. Ballanco spewing blame in the event of an accidental death doesn't change the law, or our obligations under it. Mr. Ballanco's spewing just makes Mr. Ballanco an a-hole.


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 15, 2011)

Ok Gents.........(you know) lets keep it civil or I'll be shutting it down......continue on!


----------



## texasbo (Mar 15, 2011)

Respectfully, let's also be careful not to over-moderate because of our interest in a subject. Nothing will kill a forum quicker than heavy handed moderation, and Jeff  certainly intends for this to be an open forum.


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 15, 2011)

No problem but as stated......."lets keep it civil"  There is no need for anyone to begin calling anyone names regardless of one's stance on an issue.  Personally, I don't have any issues with (clever) banter and opinions but when posters begin a trend by using insults due to one's position on a matter that becomes dis-tasteful.  If Admin has issues with this moderator's position on that specific request, I'll hear from them but until then (any affected) carry on in a civil manner.........please.


----------



## incognito (Mar 16, 2011)

Forensics,

Where in my previous posts in this thread do you detect "anger issues"? I understand that you are upset that lawmakers in state after state are responding to public outcry in regard to overreaching government sprinkler mandates but please do not project your inability to cope with this situation onto myself. It is clear that scare tactics employed early on by the fire boys have lost out to the facts presented by NAHB and responsible code officials. Ultimately you were destined for failure. Half-truths and the prostituting of families who have suffered personal tragedies so that NFPA and sprinkler companies can reap billions in profits is distasteful at best.


----------



## conarb (Mar 16, 2011)

You know how I would agree to a reasonable compromise on this contentious issue is to make sprinklers mandatory on any home built with Roof or floor trusses, I Joists, plastic foams of any type or in any place, PVC of any kind, ½" sheetrock, unprotected wood siding, and/or OSB in any sheathing. This would give builders/owners the choice of building well to avoid sprinklers, or building cheaply and installing fire sprinklers. It's the above items that are killing and maiming firefighters.

This worked in Elmhurst Illinois, given the option of fire sprinklers or solid wood construction all builders opted for solid wood rather than sprinklers. This would also help cut down on the the quantity of disposable cheap homes being built today.

Another thing, since cooking fires are the main source, it's okay with me to mandate fire extinguishing systems in hoods and restore all firewalls.


----------



## Min&Max (Mar 16, 2011)

Conarb,

Crazy talk. None of the above items are killing and maiming firefighters or anyone else. Fire Chief Shane Ray from Tennessee and Fire Team USA is very forthright about the cause of firefighters injuries and deaths. They have a propensity for UNNECESSARILY running into unoccupied buildings which are on fire.


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Mar 16, 2011)

How about we get back to the opinion originally expressed.  I can go along with some of what Conarb suggested, even though I normally don't.

If I was designing a 3 bedroom ranch with egress windows, single story home I am not sure that I could make a case for sprinkler protection.

Then again if I was desgining a multi story residental with egress windows above 8 feet, where parts of the building had limited access, I could clearly make a case for residential sprinklers.

The first case would typically allow for an effective escape, the second case is a problem.  In Wisconsin they used to call those escape window/balconies - jump platforms.  Of course that would not work for old people, young people or people with disabilties.

This is the main problem with a general requirement for sprinklers in all residential occupancies.

Getting back to the original issue ---  ARE there situations where the designer should look at the actual situation rather than just the minimum requirements.  The legal system calls that the "reasonable person" decision.  What would a reasonable person consider to be right.  If you build something that meets the minimum but clearly does not work is that reasonable.

So without name calling, or claiming scare tactics, etc.  WHAT IS REASONABLE?


----------



## permitguy (Mar 16, 2011)

> Crazy talk. None of the above items are killing and maiming firefighters or anyone else.


Ummmm . . . yes, they are.



> Fire Chief Shane Ray from Tennessee and Fire Team USA is very forthright about the cause of firefighters injuries and deaths. They have a propensity for UNNECESSARILY running into unoccupied buildings which are on fire.


Being "forthright" doesn't make you "right".  In the overall scope of injuries and deaths, relative few are directly related to firefighting activities inside of unoccupied buildings.


----------



## Frank (Mar 16, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> You know how I would agree to a reasonable compromise on this contentious issue is to make sprinklers mandatory on any home built with Roof or floor trusses, I Joists, plastic foams of any type or in any place, PVC of any kind, ½" sheetrock, unprotected wood siding, and/or OSB in any sheathing. This would give builders/owners the choice of building well to avoid sprinklers, or building cheaply and installing fire sprinklers. It's the above items that are killing and maiming firefighters.


House construction failures are not the largest cause of tramatic fire fighter deaths--vehicles are.

Falling trees kill about 2 firefighters a year vs about 1 per year for failing lightweight wood construction 2000-2009 averages

One of 2009's falling tree fatalities is directly connected to the war on drugs when he was participating in a marijuana eradication project.

From NFPA

Firefighter fatalities (2009)

•There were 82 firefighter deaths in 2009.

•Stress, exertion, and other medical-related issues, which usually result in heart attacks or other sudden cardiac events, continue to account for the largest number of fatalities. Of the 44 exertion- ore medical related fatalities in 2009, 35 were classified as sudden cardiac deaths and five were due to strokes.

•Fireground operations accounted for 27 deaths.

•Residential structure fires accounted for the largest share of fireground deaths (nine deaths).

•14 firefighters died in 11 vehicle crashes (including five firefighters killed in three aircraft crashes), while four other firefighters were struck and killed by vehicles and two fell from moving apparatus.

•There were six deaths at five intentionally-set fires in 2009.

for a more detailed report see

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/osfff.pdf


----------



## permitguy (Mar 16, 2011)

The context of the OP seemed more geared toward loss of license.  I'm not sure how or if the "reasonable person" standard would apply in that situation.

The "reasonable person" standard is only a piece of the puzzle in the scope of establishing a negligent tort.  Even if a court (or a jury) decided that a reasonable person would have acted differently, a plaintiff must still prove that a duty was owed, that duty was breached, and the breach of duty caused harm.  In the context of the OP, this would be an extremely tough sell.

The reasonable person standard is no more cut and dry than the sprinkler debate as a whole.  If 90% of the building officials (read public safety experts) in the country are fighting against residential sprinklers (hypothetical), is it not reasonable for an engineer to argue that they aren't necessary in his design?  Where is the line at which you switch from reasonable to unreasonable?

Also, let's consider the "quality" of a typical residential house plan in this country.  It's not as if we typically have full M/E/Ps, let alone detailed sprinkler drawings, on the plans themselves.  If anything, there will be some vague note about all systems being installed in accordance with the code adopted by the AHJ.  Suggesting that engineers should actually design a sprinkler system when they know it isn't required and won't be installed seems extremely irrational to me.


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 16, 2011)

> You know how I would agree to a reasonable compromise on this contentious issue


We may see a future plan of exactly this if not already too late.  AFPE and some others assisted me with this exact type of "reasonable" strategy as we felt this would happen.  Wheather we believe in sprinklers or not is really not the issue, at least for me personally.  It is a matter of providing the best protection possible within reasonable means.

As *Conarb* suggests; when these types of products and design schemes are used in the family dwelling, they do increase the failure risk to families and responders and I believe we can agree on that aspect.  My mission is to protect families and responders and conserve property lastly.  In this mission I realize that perscriptive measures historically taken away have increased the risk to my mission.  As mentioned historically, I don't care if sprinklers or perscriptive measures are added when these products or design scheme alternatives are used as long as something is done.

Please let us not forget how the abilities of families to safely egress from higher thresholds have been affected also by the historic "special interest" involvment.  The sprinkler people have our groups compromise and have noted the "possible" re-thinking of their stretegy and personally I had to laugh when asked for it and after what I went through in Baltimore but I continue on with a belief that something needs to be done when these products and schemes are adopted by developers more widley.

There you guys broke me down and I had to say something.........carry on....


----------



## Jobsaver (Mar 16, 2011)

I'm just say'in, civility starts with the requirement that a professional debating a life safety issue refrain from accusing someone personally of causing a death. Those that have been accused in that manner can appreciate the gravity of the accusation, and are not likely to take the accusation lightly, or, at all, from someone not reacting emotionally from the personal loss of a loved one.

My comment toward Mr. Ballanco's dialogue in the OP is valid. The other words I can think of to describe such a self-centered egotistical creep don't do him justice.


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Mar 16, 2011)

permitguy,

I agree with your statements.  We are simply in a situation where both sides of the issue are pressing hard with significant passion.  As a professional I can make the case either way.  I bring up the reasonable person standard as a discussion point.  To which side do you err.  I guess it depends on your state .


----------



## permitguy (Mar 16, 2011)

I'm an advocate for the installation of these systems, and do not believe passive protection is an adequate compromise.

Having said that, I acknowledge that we are years (decades?) away from these systems being accepted to the extent that other systems are.  Unlike some, I'm comfortable with that reality.  I believe my role in this is to educate people on the reality of these systems, eliminate falsehoods about them, and eventually I believe we will get them accepted.  I believe this will start with suburbs of large metropolitan areas that have the infrastructure in place for installation, water supply, etc.  Eventually, the truth of installation costs will emerge, contractors will become more comfortable, and acceptance will spread.  If this doesn't happen, it won't be for my lack of trying.

I believe people see fringe statements on both sides for what they are - attempts to jerk the momentum to their side of the argument with a knock-out punch.  The problem for them is that this isn't a boxing match; it's a triathalon, we're severley out of shape, and we just started training.


----------



## High Desert (Mar 16, 2011)

forensics said:
			
		

> The problem is that our legislature was bought off by the SC HBA (to the tune of $400,000.00)


That's a lot less than the sprinkler industry paid to get it into the IRC. Must be hard times in SC.


----------



## conarb (Mar 16, 2011)

Permitguy:

You are starting to sound like my reasonable old friend the Permitguy of old when he was a building inspector.

The way to get sprinklers accepted is to go away from water sprinklers entirely, work towards the development of low-wetting foam systems that can be easily cleaned up after a release, in this day and age, particularly in Texas and California, putting water on a fire is 19th century technology resulting in horrendously expensive mold remediation, but going away from water sprinklers means cutting ties to the lucrative coalition of sprinkler manufacturers.


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 16, 2011)

> work towards the development of low-wetting foam systems that can be easily cleaned up after a release,


Now that's just too wierd.....it appears someone may have hacked my personal computer.  That is an exceptional concept and one presently in development.  It is not hard at all.


----------

