# Residential range-top fire suppression system



## mark handler

Residential range-top fire suppression system

http://www.iflss.net/buyg300B.php


----------



## mark handler

This was posted a while back

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/forum/commercial-codes/commercial-building-codes/17688-hoods-for-break-room-stoves


----------



## cda

Low budget approach, but they do work!!!::::

http://www.stovetopfirestop.com/products#rangehood


----------



## conarb

Wonder what they use?  They say "fire suppressant" but they don't say what it is, can't be Halon anymore, maybe just CO2?  But that would inflame the Greenies who think CO2 is destroying the planet.


----------



## mtlogcabin

> Wonder what they use? They say "fire suppressant" but they don't say what it is, can't be Halon anymore, maybe just CO2? But that would inflame the Greenies who think CO2 is destroying the planet.[/quotehttp://www.iflss.net/Guardian%20300-B%20Specs.pdf
> 
> Potassium carbonate based


----------



## MASSDRIVER

Well, that's an expensive way to replace a wet towel.

I wonder if people that buy that really know what they're in for when it detonates.

Brent.


----------



## cda

> Well, that's an expensive way to replace a wet towel. I wonder if people that buy that really know what they're in for when it detonates.
> 
> Brent.


Some cities are requiring them in apartment units


----------



## mark handler

> Some cities are requiring them in apartment units


Under what code or  justification?


----------



## cda

> Under what code or justification?


Amended code,

I want it section


----------



## conarb

> Wonder what they use? They say "fire suppressant" but they don't say what it is, can't be Halon anymore, maybe just CO2? But that would inflame the Greenies who think CO2 is destroying the planet.[/quotehttp://www.iflss.net/Guardian%20300-B%20Specs.pdf
> 
> Potassium carbonate based
Click to expand...

People with kidney disease can not take any potassium in their diets, it gets from the alimentary tract into the blood stream and is filtered through the kidneys. I have no idea if potassium inhaled gets into the kidneys.  Sounds like it might be worth the risk if homes with it installed could eliminate the water sprinkler requirement.


----------



## Pcinspector1

Why would it need to be chemical based, why not detergent based? Soap


----------



## Builder Bob

> Why would it need to be chemical based' date=' why not detergent based? Soap[/quote']To clean......LOL


----------



## RFDACM02

> People with kidney disease can not take any potassium in their diets, it gets from the alimentary tract into the blood stream and is filtered through the kidneys. I have no idea if potassium inhaled gets into the kidneys. Sounds like it might be worth the risk if homes with it installed could eliminate the water sprinkler requirement.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the case at all. They maybe required by the municipal ordinances and rule, but I doubt they extend beyond their intent which appears to be range top suppression. Can't see it having any effect on true sprinkler requirements.


----------



## cda

http://www.stovetopfirestop.com/resources/legislation-code


----------



## conarb

> I don't think that's the case at all. They maybe required by the municipal ordinances and rule, but I doubt they extend beyond their intent which appears to be range top suppression. Can't see it having any effect on true sprinkler requirements.
Click to expand...

Since home fires and deaths are way down, and the vast majority of home fires start in cooking, my thinking is that this system could eliminate the sprinkler requirement. The leading causes of death are heart related, cancer, and medical malpractice with up to 440,000 per year, the last I saw home fires were under 2,000 per year, the money spent on fire sprinklers could be better spent on better medical training.  If these stove top suppression systems could cut the home fire deaths in half that would leave less than a 1,000 deaths per year from home fires, negligible compared to medical malpractice.


----------



## tmurray

> Since home fires and deaths are way down, and the vast majority of home fires start in cooking, my thinking is that this system could eliminate the sprinkler requirement. The leading causes of death are heart related, cancer, and medical malpractice with up to 440,000 per year, the last I saw home fires were under 2,000 per year, the money spent on fire sprinklers could be better spent on better medical training. If these stove top suppression systems could cut the home fire deaths in half that would leave less than a 1,000 deaths per year from home fires, negligible compared to medical malpractice.


it is certainly the leading cause of fires with the time frame for most fires being in the 5-6pm range based on NFPA studies, but this is also when the least number of deaths occur. Most deaths occur at 3am. So are the sprinklers to prevent fires or deaths? The problem is not in suppression and never has been. Houses are designed to burn to the ground once the occupants safely get out. This really requires proper smoke alarm systems that we see in more modern construction. The problem in recent years has been the owners not properly maintaining and in some cases crippling the alarm system. The new sealed ten year units are a big step forward though.


----------



## tmurray

Also...http://www.havenfiresafety.com


----------



## RFDACM02

> Since home fires and deaths are way down, and the vast majority of home fires start in cooking, my thinking is that this system could eliminate the sprinkler requirement.
Click to expand...

 Won't ever happen and would be a large step in the wrong direction. New homes are built to burn, fires are burning hotter, faster and engineered wood products are failing in short times. As more new house become old and the overall housing stock transitions from tradition legacy construction to the newer lightweight you'll see a rise or resurgence in fire deaths unless we proactively provide the protection a sprinkler system brings. We should focus on bring down the cost of these life saving systems, widespread adoption of all section of any of the major code sets would bring commodity prices lower in regions and breed competition lower costs.


----------



## RFDACM02

> it is certainly the leading cause of fires with the time frame for most fires being in the 5-6pm range based on NFPA studies, but this is also when the least number of deaths occur. Most deaths occur at 3am. So are the sprinklers to prevent fires or deaths? The problem is not in suppression and never has been. Houses are designed to burn to the ground once the occupants safely get out. This really requires proper smoke alarm systems that we see in more modern construction. The problem in recent years has been the owners not properly maintaining and in some cases crippling the alarm system. The new sealed ten year units are a big step forward though.


While sprinklers are designed to protect the occupants they are extremely effective in suppressing fires. It will be nearly impossible to get an sprinkler design to cover property protection in one and two family or residential homes where there is very little enforcement of how the dwelling unit is maintained. The issue that makes smoke alarms less effective than they could be is humans. The detectors are not fool proof and false alarms result in either removal or silencing them until it's too late. We responded to a multiple apartment building fire last Thursday where at least three occupied apartments ignored/disregarded their alarms sounding once they saw it was not an issue in their unit, only to find 15 minutes later a significant fire was raging in a first floor unit. By the time everyone realized the severity of the situation some had to escape through heavy smoke conditions. Sprinklers do not make poor decisions.


----------



## tmurray

> While sprinklers are designed to protect the occupants they are extremely effective in suppressing fires. It will be nearly impossible to get an sprinkler design to cover property protection in one and two family or residential homes where there is very little enforcement of how the dwelling unit is maintained. The issue that makes smoke alarms less effective than they could be is humans. The detectors are not fool proof and false alarms result in either removal or silencing them until it's too late. We responded to a multiple apartment building fire last Thursday where at least three occupied apartments ignored/disregarded their alarms sounding once they saw it was not an issue in their unit, only to find 15 minutes later a significant fire was raging in a first floor unit. By the time everyone realized the severity of the situation some had to escape through heavy smoke conditions. Sprinklers do not make poor decisions.


The problem with residential sprinklers is going to be the same thing as smoke alarms though. After only ten years of mandatory sprinklers, Vancouver found only 95% still working. The National Research Council of Canada found that the number could fall to as much as 60% over the life span of the buildings. If people can't get something as basic as smoke alarms working well; replace it every 10 years and test it at least twice a year, they aren't going to maintain a sprinkler system.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

How many cooking fires resulted in injuries, death, or property damage. Just saying they are a leading cause of fires doesn't tell us much as they occur in a place pretty much meant to be on fire.

Brent.


----------



## RFDACM02

> How many cooking fires resulted in injuries, death, or property damage. Just saying they are a leading cause of fires doesn't tell us much as they occur in a place pretty much meant to be on fire.Brent.


Meant to be on fire? Damn your kitchen must be different than mine! Don't have the stats in front of me, and in all honestly, don't see the point in wasting time trying to convince those not willing to listen. I doubt you'll see the requirements go away, Slowly more places are adopting the regulations as they're in all the major code sets, the stats support their use. Sprinkler requirements are not in place to control only kitchen fires, so  I don't see the kitchen only system being a viable alternative. Maybe they have potential to be whole house and cheaper?


----------



## MASSDRIVER

> Meant to be on fire? Damn your kitchen must be different than mine! Don't have the stats in front of me, and in all honestly, don't see the point in wasting time trying to convince those not willing to listen. I doubt you'll see the requirements go away, Slowly more places are adopting the regulations as they're in all the major code sets, the stats support their use. Sprinkler requirements are not in place to control only kitchen fires, so  I don't see the kitchen only system being a viable alternative. Maybe they have potential to be whole house and cheaper?


My kitchen is the same as everybody else's. Fire comes right out of the top of the stove. If not actual fire, then red hot coils the same temp as fire.

And I'm not referring to sprinklers, I'm talking about the dumb fire suppression system.

There is not corallary to commercial ansul, as the primary purpose of that is to squelch hood duct fires. No cook worth his salt will activate fire suppression for a stovetop fire unless it's just completely out of control. They just smother it. If you ever see one go off you will know why.

The reason I ask for for some type of statistical review is this; I would like to know if they are counting all fires with no associated damage. Of course, industry and regulators will make the stats look like cooking fires are killing more people than A-10 Warthogs in combat, and causing billions of dollars in damage. I just doubt that. Call me crazy. My point is, is it worth mandating something where the cost is billions of dollars to save a few thousand.

Another thing that bothers me is the statement, and I paraphrase, " you're too stupid to understand so I won't even spend any time to support my position". Usually that's an indication that the position is not well supported.

And just because you feel something is inevitable does not lend credence that it's valid in any way, or even useful.

However, If somebody wants to voluntarily waste their money on one then by all means, have at it.

Brent.


----------



## NikonJ2

In Massachusetts, this issue on whether to have single and two family homes sprinkler has been going on for years. First, the building code is the minimum... so nothing in the code says that they can't put one in, but most choose not to due to cost or they are on wells or what ever reason.  But they have the choice to do so.  Making it mandatory would only limit it to only those that have the ability to afford a house with a sprinkler system.  And my take is, if there really is an issue, why don't we just change the code and require that all sheet rock used be fire rated... period.

I know that I am new here and maybe I should watch from the distance, but this is an interesting topic.  Also, I think that we may have moved from the original posters intent of their thread and maybe we shouldn't change it and start a new one?  :eagerness:

Getting back to the original post, I have seen that sort of stove top protectors at a factory conversion for a 55 and over apartment complex.  Never seen it before, but the town accepted it.  Would like to see it in action to get an idea if it really works or not.


----------



## cda

> In Massachusetts, this issue on whether to have single and two family homes sprinkler has been going on for years. First, the building code is the minimum... so nothing in the code says that they can't put one in, but most choose not to due to cost or they are on wells or what ever reason.  But they have the choice to do so.  Making it mandatory would only limit it to only those that have the ability to afford a house with a sprinkler system.  And my take is, if there really is an issue, why don't we just change the code and require that all sheet rock used be fire rated... period.I know that I am new here and maybe I should watch from the distance, but this is an interesting topic.  Also, I think that we may have moved from the original posters intent of their thread and maybe we shouldn't change it and start a new one?  :eagerness:
> 
> Getting back to the original post, I have seen that sort of stove top protectors at a factory conversion for a 55 and over apartment complex.  Never seen it before, but the town accepted it.  Would like to see it in action to get an idea if it really works or not.


""""And my take is, if there really is an issue, why don't we just change the code and require that all sheet rock used be fire rated... period.""""

Sheetrock don't burn,,, almost

It is the building contents


----------



## RFDACM02

> My kitchen is the same as everybody else's. Fire comes right out of the top of the stove. If not actual fire, then red hot coils the same temp as fire.
> 
> And I'm not referring to sprinklers, I'm talking about the dumb fire suppression system.
> 
> There is not corallary to commercial ansul, as the primary purpose of that is to squelch hood duct fires. No cook worth his salt will activate fire suppression for a stovetop fire unless it's just completely out of control. They just smother it. If you ever see one go off you will know why.
> 
> The reason I ask for for some type of statistical review is this; I would like to know if they are counting all fires with no associated damage. Of course, industry and regulators will make the stats look like cooking fires are killing more people than A-10 Warthogs in combat, and causing billions of dollars in damage. I just doubt that. Call me crazy. My point is, is it worth mandating something where the cost is billions of dollars to save a few thousand.
> 
> Another thing that bothers me is the statement, and I paraphrase, " you're too stupid to understand so I won't even spend any time to support my position". Usually that's an indication that the position is not well supported.
> 
> And just because you feel something is inevitable does not lend credence that it's valid in any way, or even useful.
> 
> However, If somebody wants to voluntarily waste their money on one then by all means, have at it.
> 
> Brent.


I must have misinterpreted what you were addressing. I don't see mandating these kitchen suppression systems, but if people want them, fine, but I would not support using them to eliminate the need for sprinklers as has been suggested by others and the kitchen system folks.

Secondly, it's not that I think you or anyone is too stupid, quite the contrary, but I grow weary of needing to dig up stats to prove my points, there readily available if you need them, I'm confident in my support of sprinklers and choose not to fight every minute detail. Too often when facts are brought out, then the details of those facts are not good enough. Again, my point was not to think something made for kitchen issue could eliminate residential sprinklers. I feel very strongly that we have the solution to most residential fire deaths and they should mandated nationwide, as every major code set has recognized the benefits and made them a requirement.


----------



## RFDACM02

> The problem with residential sprinklers is going to be the same thing as smoke alarms though. After only ten years of mandatory sprinklers, Vancouver found only 95% still working. The National Research Council of Canada found that the number could fall to as much as 60% over the life span of the buildings. If people can't get something as basic as smoke alarms working well; replace it every 10 years and test it at least twice a year, they aren't going to maintain a sprinkler system.


So require they be operational. Make a rule for 10 year inspection/recertifications, they need very little interaction. 60% over the life of a building? What was the life span they used? I can't imagine that every part of a building is likely to see the same degradation. Will 60% of buildings have safe electrical systems over their total life span?


----------



## RFDACM02

> In Massachusetts' date=' this issue on whether to have single and two family homes sprinkler has been going on for years. First, the building code is the minimum... so nothing in the code says that they can't put one in, but most choose not to due to cost or they are on wells or what ever reason. But they have the choice to do so. Making it mandatory would only limit it to only those that have the ability to afford a house with a sprinkler system. And my take is, if there really is an issue, why don't we just change the code and require that all sheet rock used be fire rated... period..[/quote']I agree this would limit some people by raising the price of a home, much like installing air bags in cars did the price of a vehicle.This is the only serious argument that has been successful in preventing sprinkler requirements that I've seen. But, alas, most houses have much greater costs associated with elective countertops or lawn sprinklers, or other features.And as noted above it isn't an issue of the house structure burning, but the contents burning and killing the occupants long before event the basic 1/2" gyp board fails. The contents we furnish our homes with have changes from natural products to petroleum based plastic products that burn more toxic and release the maximum heat much faster, reducing the time one has to escape to dangerous levels. This will only get worse as we continue to make our homes more energy efficient letting toxic gases stay trapped and the fire to use up the oxygen. If the fire can use up the oxygen enough to smolder there is not enough for life. We must stop the fire before it gets to this point, and right now, sprinklers are the only viable answer.


----------



## conarb

> I must have misinterpreted what you were addressing. I don't see mandating these kitchen suppression systems, but if people want them, fine, but I would not support using them to eliminate the need for sprinklers as has been suggested by others and the kitchen system folks.
> 
> Secondly, it's not that I think you or anyone is too stupid, quite the contrary, but I grow weary of needing to dig up stats to prove my points, there readily available if you need them, I'm confident in my support of sprinklers and choose not to fight every minute detail. Too often when facts are brought out, then the details of those facts are not good enough. Again, my point was not to think something made for kitchen issue could eliminate residential sprinklers. I feel very strongly that we have the solution to most residential fire deaths and they should mandated nationwide, as every major code set has recognized the benefits and made them a requirement.


Well RFDACM02, whatever your name is, you haven't been around long enough to know what we've been through on this issue, including the Minneapolis code hearing wherein sprinklers were adopted, we saw the bribery that the coalition of fire sprinkler manufacturers engaged in to corrupt the process, several here who took the bribes were served FOIA requests but noting was done about it.  As a matter of fact the Canadian National Mortgage Association (a government agency) did a series of studies showing that sprinklers were a waste of money in comparison to much more effective uses of the money to save lives.  .*I think the 2005 study is one of the latest*, this entire issue has been cloaked in fraud from the beginning, for instance the coalition of sprinkler manufacturers claimed that they could be installed for something absurd like $2 a square foot, I got bids on installing them in a new 4,000 square foot house and the sprinkler system alone cost $200,000 plus another $21,000 for 15,000 more gallons of well storage, that amounted to $55 a square foot instead of $2 a square foot.  Just for your information here in California sprinklers must be installed by journeyman sprinkler fitters, and many areas require copper or black steel pipe, it's interesting now that Apple's new spaceship headquarters is being built the plumbers are on strike wanting $20 an hour more to install plastic pipe.



			
				\ said:
			
		

> CUPERTINO -- About 200 union plumbers and steamfitters gathered outside Apple's under-construction spaceship campus Thursday to protest what they said were unfair wages being paid by a contractor.  Members of UA Local Union 393 claim a contractor on the job is not paying plumbers the "prevailing wage rate" as prescribed by the state's Department of Industrial Relations.
> 
> "There's workers out here not being paid the right wage for the work being performed, and that's not right," said Bill Guthrie, a union spokesman.¹


You mentioned airbags, I drive a Viper for my sports car, production is ceasing after the 2017 model year for 2 reasons, first the government is requiring they purchase carbon credits, Marchione agreed to buy credits from Tesla and keep the car going, then they are requiring side airbags in all 2018 cars, and the way the car is built there is no way absent redesigning the entire car they can fit side airbags in it, people who buy and drive Vipers know they are very dangerous cars and are not risk averse people.  We all take risks every day, we are not all risk averse, the risk averse should not be allowed to dictate how others live their lives or spend their money.

¹ http://www.mercurynews.com/cupertino/ci_29680397/cupertino-union-workers-protest-unfair-wages-at-apple


----------



## steveray

Statistics? Here you go:

Per NFPA's own study in 09-13 99.6% survival rate with HW smokes regardless of occupant screwing them up. Add sprinklers and it goes to 99.8%...We are talking about 0.2% increase we could outlaw smoking, lower the speed limits by half, have an IQ test to own a home or operate power tools or thousands of other things and save more lives if that is really the intent....I can send the PDF to anyone that needs it.


----------



## mark handler

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fires-in-the-us

In 2014, there were 1,298,000 fires reported in the United States. These fires caused 3,275 civilian deaths, 15,775 civilian injuries, and $11.6 billion in property damage.

•494,000 were structure fires, causing 2,860 civilian deaths, 13,425 civilian injuries, and $9.8 billion in property damage.

•193,500 were vehicle fires, causing 345 civilian fire deaths, 1,450 civilian fire injuries, and $1.5 billion in property damage.

•610,500 were outside and other fires, causing 70 civilian fire deaths, 900 civilian fire injuries, and $237 million in property damage.

The 2014 U.S. fire loss clock a fire department responded to a fire every 24 seconds. One structure fire was reported every 64 seconds.

•One home structure fire was reported every 86 seconds.

•One civilian fire injury was reported every 33 minutes.

•One civilian fire death occurred every 2 hours and 41 minutes.

•One outside and other fire was reported every 52 seconds.

•One highway vehicle fire was reported every 3 minutes 8 seconds.

Three of every five home fire deaths resulted from fires in homes with no smoke alarms (38%) or no working smoke alarms (21%).

 The death rate per 100 reported home fires was more than twice as high in homes that did not have any working smoke alarms (1.18 deaths per 100 fires), either because no smoke alarm was present or an alarm was present but did not operate), as it was in homes with working smoke alarms (0.53 per 100 fires).

 The death rate from reported fires in homes that had at least one smoke alarm (0.59 deaths per 100 fires) was one-third (36%) lower than in homes that had no smoke alarms at all (0.98 deaths per 100 fires).

 The death rate was much higher in fires in which a smoke alarm was present but did not operate (1.89 deaths per 100 fires) than it was in home fires with no smoke alarms at all.

In reported home fires with smoke alarms:

 Almost half (46%) of the alarms were powered by battery only.

 Two-thirds (67%) of home fire deaths were caused by fires in homes with smoke alarms powered by battery only.

In reported home fires large enough to activate the alarm,

 Hardwired smoke alarms operated 94% of the time.

 Battery-powered smoke alarms operated in four out of five (80%) fires.

http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/research/fact-sheets/smokealarmsfactsheet.pdf?la=en


----------



## conarb

As we know Mark Twain said: "There are three kinds of lies, lies, damned lies, and statistics", the validity of the statistics is reliant upon whom created them, taking some sources:

View attachment 2191


One could make the case from the U.S. Fire Administration that fire deaths have gone up since the sprinkler mandate became law, I'm not making that case but using it to illustrate how statistics can be manipulated to make a point.¹  One could also present that chart to new homeowners and recommend that they turn their sprinklers off, we are already telling them to open windows at all times in new homes because the code is mandating that we seal up buildings to save energy and the result is people are getting sick in their new "Green Homes", I guess through the use of statistics I could make the case that: "Codes kill"Another statistical graph this time from the NFPA, an NGO in the fire business:
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 2192


In reliance upon the NFPA, we can assume that hafl of all fires are caused by cooking.²Looking further at NFPA statistics we can see that most home fires occur in certain southern states plus Alaska:





			
				\ said:
			
		

> [h=3]Executive Summary[/h] The long-term trend in fire death rates per million population has been sloping substantially downward for nearly every state since 1980. In the five most recent years analyzed (2006-2010), Mississippi had the highest average fire death rate, and Southeastern states accounted for eight of the ten highest rates, with Alaska and Oklahoma (which borders the southeastern states) as the other two. When the five-year average rates are compared to state differences, several factors show notable correlations, including poverty (44% of statistical variation explained), race (43%), smoking (38%), rural (36%), and education (19%). All of these findings are consistent with findings in other studies of socioeconomic and behavioral factors related to measures of fire loss.³


As an on observation southerners tend to fry food at a much higher rate than most others, since cooking causes most of the fire deaths and those seem to come from frying food it would make more sense to ban frying pans.  On a personal note we have turned on neither our oven nor our cook top in 10 years when my mother passed away at 101, everything here is cooked in the microwave, fried food is unhealthy and I would venture to guess that more lives could be saved by banning frying pans than by stopping fires, and banning frying pans would certainly save more lives than all the fire sprinklers in the world could ever hope to save.¹ https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/res_bldg_fire_estimates.pdf² http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fires-in-the-us/overall-fire-problem/unintentional-fire-deaths-by-state³ http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fires-in-the-us/overall-fire-problem/unintentional-fire-deaths-by-state
View attachment 2191


View attachment 2192


/monthly_2016_03/usfa.jpg.9a42bf05b183d4e7b1266ec6095479c7.jpg

/monthly_2016_03/nfpa.jpg.0de4198d38ecc05a2acc225a5a83be57.jpg


----------



## JBI

"As an on observation southerners tend to fry food at a much higher rate than most others, since cooking causes most of the fire deaths and those seem to come from frying food it would make more sense to ban frying pans. On a personal note we have turned on neither our oven nor our cook top in 10 years when my mother passed away at 101, everything here is cooked in the microwave, fried food is unhealthy and I would venture to guess that more lives could be saved by banning frying pans than by stopping fires, and banning frying pans would certainly save more lives than all the fire sprinklers in the world could ever hope to save."

conarb - You crack me up! LOL


----------



## conarb

> conarb - You crack me up! LOL


Yeah but JBI, I proved my point with statistics, every decent college has a mandatory class in lying with statistics.


----------



## JBI

Statistics are a mathematic method to reach a pre-determined conclusion.


----------



## conarb

> Statistics are a mathematic method to reach a pre-determined conclusion.


Very true, we've all just seen the most extreme abuse of that in the global warming scam, after Climategate NASA was asked about their results and it was determined that their raw data was adjusted in space and there was no way they could provide the raw data to peer review scientists, they were instructed to go back to space and bring back unadulterated data, the first two launches failed, a conspiracy inclined person might think that deliberate, but eventually they succeeded,  after bringing back 18 years of cooling they "adjusted" the data with ground based measurements to reach the predetermined conclusion the government demanded. The excuse is that all data has to be adjusted for extant conditions,  in all instances of _a posteriori_ knowledge an almost infallible way to analyze it is the old tried and true *"FOLLOW THE MONEY"* method, look where the money flows, with fire sprinklers it flows to the sprinkler manufacturers, from there it flows back to the fire service and their unions, why do you think firemen make so much more money than building inspectors?  I was standing a a building department counter talking to the retiring head plan checker, I said: "Now you get to go out traveling around the world on all that pension money we have paid for you.". He looked at me with a disgusted look and said: "Not me, I've still got a son in medical school, those guys get all the money", as he pointed to a low table with the fire marshal sitting going over plans with another contractor.

I do have to give our building inspectors credit though, back when Gray Davis was governor the NFPA "bribed" the entire Building Standards Commission to adopt the NFPA 5000 instead of the ICC Codes, fortunately Davis was recalled and the Commission offered the resignations to the new governor and he accepted them and appointed a new commission that immediately repealed the prior commission's adoption of the NFPA 5000 and adopted the I Codes.  Unfortunately nobody was prosecuted, I bet a deal was cut, resign quietlly and we'll forget the whole thing. During the period when the NFPA 5000 was set for adoption the local firemen went to our building inspectors offering to take them into their union so they could get the same much higher salaries and pensions as the firemen get, our inspectors refused, I personally congratulated a few of them for their honesty.


----------



## JBI

" I bet a deal was cut, resign quietly and we'll forget the whole thing."

In my home county, two of the top DPW guys were caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They were offered what you described.

The one who accepted retired with his pension.

The other one chose to fight the charges because 'everyone does it'. No pension, few job prospects (NONE in government).

I applaud the Code Officials who wouldn't be bought.


----------



## tmurray

I recently looked into the times when fires occurred the most in relation to the most fire deaths. Based on NFPA documents, most fires occurred around 5-6PM, but this correlated with the least amount of deaths. The most deaths correlated with a very low fire start time around 3AM. This appears to indicate that it is more important to notify occupants there is a fire inside their home so they can exit the building rather than attempt to extinguish the fire. Additional measures for fire suppression should be promoted, but not required by code.


----------



## NikonJ2

CDA wrote.... "It is the building contents"

True statement.  But it is added protection which would also help to limit deaths.  As we know, many people can't be bothered to replace the battery of their smoke detector and I have experienced homes, with sprinklers, being shut off due to the fact that there was a repair issue that they didn't want to address.  To me, a would rather have a functioning smoke detector, which would sound an alarm quicker (due to the smoke) than a sprinkler system which would take longer to alert me of a fire.  But as I had stated before, the pros and cons of this is really not the subject here.  I do find this system interesting and can see why it is not widely utilized here in Massachusetts.  But it is out there.  Of note, I do recall seeing, what I would call, mini-ansul systems for stoves at an ICC conference in either Baltimore. That was something to see. Nice and condensed.  I bet it weighed a ton!  :chuncky:

Steveray, I would like to get that PDF.

Conarb, regarding the Minneapolis code hearing, many building officials from Massachusetts went to that hearing and also reported back on the "joke" of that vote.  As I recall, for many years afterwards, that issue has come up at following ICC sessions; trying to figure out a way to prevent it from happening again.


----------



## cda

NO NO NO

Your but is the problem:::

http://www.portlandoregon.gov/fire/70311


----------



## JBI

As a smoker I make every effort to be conscientious of where my butts go...


----------



## RFDACM02

> Well RFDACM02, whatever your name is, you haven't been around long enough to know what we've been through on this issue, including the Minneapolis code hearing wherein sprinklers were adopted, we saw the bribery that the coalition of fire sprinkler manufacturers engaged in to corrupt the process, several here who took the bribes were served FOIA requests but noting was done about it. As a matter of fact the Canadian National Mortgage Association (a government agency) did a series of studies showing that sprinklers were a waste of money in comparison to much more effective uses of the money to save lives. .*I think the 2005 study is one of the latest*, this entire issue has been cloaked in fraud from the beginning, for instance the coalition of sprinkler manufacturers claimed that they could be installed for something absurd like $2 a square foot, I got bids on installing them in a new 4,000 square foot house and the sprinkler system alone cost $200,000 plus another $21,000 for 15,000 more gallons of well storage, that amounted to $55 a square foot instead of $2 a square foot. Just for your information here in California sprinklers must be installed by journeyman sprinkler fitters, and many areas require copper or black steel pipe, it's interesting now that Apple's new spaceship headquarters is being built the plumbers are on strike wanting $20 an hour more to install plastic pipe.
> 
> You mentioned airbags, I drive a Viper for my sports car, production is ceasing after the 2017 model year for 2 reasons, first the government is requiring they purchase carbon credits, Marchione agreed to buy credits from Tesla and keep the car going, then they are requiring side airbags in all 2018 cars, and the way the car is built there is no way absent redesigning the entire car they can fit side airbags in it, people who buy and drive Vipers know they are very dangerous cars and are not risk averse people. We all take risks every day, we are not all risk averse, the risk averse should not be allowed to dictate how others live their lives or spend their money.
> 
> ¹ http://www.mercurynews.com/cupertino/ci_29680397/cupertino-union-workers-protest-unfair-wages-at-apple


So $55 sqft to sprinkler  4000 sq.ft.home? Sorry a bit more than the highest prices we see here in an area where only the individual municipalities have adopted the requirements. Highest I've heard locally was $8/sqft. and that was off the supply grid and small overall square footage. Of course we don't require anything more than 13D requires, so it appears you can thank those who have driven the price up by adding on onerous requirements basically pricing safety out. Our state requires certified plumbers be licensed 13D installers but stop short of requiring sprinkler contractors, just a sprinkler engineers plans. I suspect the Unionized plumbers want more money as they see the speed and lower cost of plastic cutting into their long-term profit.

As for the Canadian National Mortgage Assoc. I'd think you'd see the obvious bias they might have in the price of any home going up by any dollar value. But of course they must be free of bias, their governmental right?

I've seen sprinkler work first hand, and I have no stake in the installation field, so I guarantee you aren't changing my thought process, and it appears that your convinced they're not worth it, so I fine agreeing to disagree.


----------



## RFDACM02

> Statistics? Here you goer NFPA's own study in 09-13 99.6% survival rate with HW smokes regardless of occupant screwing them up. Add sprinklers and it goes to 99.8%...We are talking about 0.2% increase we could outlaw smoking, lower the speed limits by half, have an IQ test to own a home or operate power tools or thousands of other things and save more lives if that is really the intent....I can send the PDF to anyone that needs it.


I'd love the link or pdf on that NFPA stat. Both those numbers are much higher than the highest effectiveness I've ever seen quoted anywhere.


----------



## conarb

RFDACM02:That home was a full steel frame with cathedral ceilings as much as 25 feet high, plastic pipe not allowed, the bids I got were for copper because steel would have been even harder to get through the steel.  In addition to that the local fire department has onerous requirements requiring three stainless steel 5,000 tanks for storage on site.  Actually it's cheaper on a well than for  homes served by municipal systems that require a separate meter for as much as $234,600 for a 2" meter required in the large home I build. This map was from a few years ago when we were arguing this before.

View attachment 2194


View attachment 2194


/monthly_2016_04/ebmud3.jpg.0319e58a52934cabf6f37f59f89d7b0f.jpg


----------



## conarb

RFDACM02:

That home was a full steel frame with cathedral ceilings as much as 25 feet high, plastic pipe not allowed, the bids I got were for copper because steel pipe would have been even harder to get through the steel columns and beams. In addition to that the local fire department has onerous requirements requiring three stainless steel 5,000 tanks for storage on site. Actually it's cheaper on a well than for homes served by municipal systems that require a separate meter for as much as $234,600 for a 2" meter required in the large home I build. This map was from a few years ago when we were arguing this before. One of my biggest gripes is that the sprinkler manufacturers' coalition was taking prices from a low priced state like South Carolina building $100 a square foot homes when we are building $1,000 a square foot homes in our high priced area.

I don't know how this happened but I tried to edit before posting and this software split it into two posts.


----------



## steveray

> I'd love the link or pdf on that NFPA stat. Both those numbers are much higher than the highest effectiveness I've ever seen quoted anywhere.


PM me your email....


----------



## steveray

> CDA wrote.... "It is the building contents"True statement. But it is added protection which would also help to limit deaths. As we know, many people can't be bothered to replace the battery of their smoke detector and I have experienced homes, with sprinklers, being shut off due to the fact that there was a repair issue that they didn't want to address. To me, a would rather have a functioning smoke detector, which would sound an alarm quicker (due to the smoke) than a sprinkler system which would take longer to alert me of a fire. But as I had stated before, the pros and cons of this is really not the subject here. I do find this system interesting and can see why it is not widely utilized here in Massachusetts. But it is out there. Of note, I do recall seeing, what I would call, mini-ansul systems for stoves at an ICC conference in either Baltimore. That was something to see. Nice and condensed. I bet it weighed a ton! :chuncky:
> 
> Steveray, I would like to get that PDF.
> 
> Conarb, regarding the Minneapolis code hearing, many building officials from Massachusetts went to that hearing and also reported back on the "joke" of that vote. As I recall, for many years afterwards, that issue has come up at following ICC sessions; trying to figure out a way to prevent it from happening again.


PM me your email...NFPA protecting their stuff and I don't have a direct link...


----------



## cda

Here is a 2015

http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/research/nfpa-reports/fire-protection-systems/ossmokealarms.pdf?la=en


----------



## tmurray

> As for the Canadian National Mortgage Assoc. I'd think you'd see the obvious bias they might have in the price of any home going up by any dollar value. But of course they must be free of bias, their governmental right?


Assuming you are talking about the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, I fail to see how an organization that only sells mortgage insurance gets any benefit from preventing sprinklers in homes. If you are saying their data is incorrect, please provide the evidence.


----------



## cda

http://www.nfpa.org/safety-information/for-consumers/fire-and-safety-equipment/smoke-alarms/reports-and-statistics-about-smoke-alarms


----------



## steveray

http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fire-safety-equipment/smoke-alarms-in-us-home-fires

page 13


----------



## conarb

> Assuming you are talking about the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, I fail to see how an organization that only sells mortgage insurance gets any benefit from preventing sprinklers in homes. If you are saying their data is incorrect, please provide the evidence.


TMurray:

That's true, and as opposed to the NFPA that has always been a corrupt organization, an agent of the fire sprinkler manufacturers, as Steveray said above:



> Conarb, regarding the Minneapolis code hearing, many building officials from Massachusetts went to that hearing and also reported back on the "joke" of that vote. As I recall, for many years afterwards, that issue has come up at following ICC sessions; trying to figure out a way to prevent it from happening again.


Watching that travesty was disgusting, then hearing about the hospitality suites with booze and hookers serving the firemen paid to vote for sprinklers was disgusting.


----------



## steveray

"with booze and hookers serving the firemen"...That and a pension...I knew I should have been a FF...:eagerness:


----------



## Builder Bob

Wow,,,,, I was a firefighter... and never got served by hookers, drinks, nor do I receive a great pension.....My pension is about 1/3 of what i made working full time..... 24 K ---- after 32 years......


----------



## cda

> Wow' date=',,,, I was a firefighter... and never got served by hookers, drinks, nor do I receive a great pension.....My pension is about 1/3 of what i made working full time..... 24 K ---- after 32 years...... [/quote']"""hospitality suites with booze and hookers serving the firemen,   paid to vote for sprinklers
> 
> Why were the hookers paid to vote???   They wanted fire sprinklers in thier work places???


----------



## tmurray

> """hospitality suites with booze and hookers serving the firemen, paid to vote for sprinklers
> 
> Why were the hookers paid to vote??? They wanted fire sprinklers in thier work places???


of course they do, don't you know how safe sprinklers make everything?


----------



## Builder Bob

other comments could be made.... but i will refrain and keep this a pg conversation......


----------



## cda

> of course they do, don't you know how safe sprinklers make everything?


Ohhhhh sprinklers

I thought it said """sprinkles""". That is my part time job name


----------



## ICE




----------



## NikonJ2

Steveray, having some problems PM you... working on it.


----------



## FM William Burns

*"The truth is out there"*


----------



## Pcinspector1

> *"The truth is out there"*


cda's other job name is "sprinkles?"


----------



## Builder Bob

> *"The truth is out there"*


"The truth will set you free....."


----------



## MASSDRIVER

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. "

Brent


----------

