# Good convincing arguments against Residential Fire Sprinkleres



## Little_Guy

All the talk and articles I have seen was in support for sprinkler systems in homes. I did find a article developed in 2008 from a company called Fire Smarts, LLC that made a statement that really sounded home the Fire Sprinkler issue for me. They said that in 2007 the residential fire sprinkler industry had a 100 million market. Then they said that it was time for the fire sprinkler industry to stand up and be prepared for the transformation that was going to happen when they finished the code changes for the IRC. The new estimated market potential was 3+ Billion. I am in the wrong business, I need to start a residential sprinkler company and get a part of that 3+ Billion.

As many of you may know, Washington State Building Code adoption process approved by the state legislature has adopted the 2009 I code Family. Instead of making a decision at the state level they moved the residential sprinkler section to the appendix sections of the code. Now we have to either agree with the overwhelming forces of the Fire Services or fight the fire sprinkler requirements at the local levels.

Local governmental bodies need to hear what he issues are and not the hype. I will enforce whatever my council adopts, but I want to make sure that they get all the right info.

Does anyone have any clear dissertations that discuss both pro and con or any con because there is lots of pro out there from the Fire Sprinkler Coalition.


----------



## AegisFPE

Here's one consideration: *[highlight]NFPA reports 99.45% survival rate with smoke alarms!*[/highlight]

Proponents of RFSS have summarily dismissed the age of a home as a contributing factor in their statistics.  This takes improvements in smoke alarm provisions out of the equation.

Older homes are less likely to be equipped with multiple hard-wired interconnected smoke alarms as would be required today.  Current code provisions for smoke alarms address previous issues identified with unreliable power supplies and lack of audibility in sleeping rooms.

Data from 2000 to 2004 was presented in a January 2008 NFPA report, though apparently not widely circulated:



> The chances of surviving a reported home fire when working smoke alarms are present are 99.45%





> In 2000-2004, an average of 1,020 people per year (34% of the home structure fire fatalities) died in homes with working smoke alarms.





> Two-thirds of the smoke alarms in U.S. non-confined homes structure fires with this equipment were powered by batteries only.  These fires resulted in 73% of the associated deaths.  The 15% percent of incidents with hardwired smoke alarms with battery backup resulted in 10% of the deaths.  The 14% of reported fires with smoke alarms that were hardwired only resulted in 12% of the deaths.


Now that NFPA is reporting that working smoke alarms support a 99.45% survival rate in a house fire, then the potential improvement to life safety by adding RFSS is about half-a-percent.


----------



## peach

well, it's in the code now.. the debate is all over.


----------



## jpranch

I almost hesitate to say this but... Cost must be discussed. To quote any single figure for the cost of installation for the whole country is insane. The national average per square foot to build a single family dwelling in our jurisdiction had to be modified by +17.6%. So do some research to see if it will cost $2.68 or $6.00 a Sq. Ft. in your jurisdiction. It may certainly may make a difference in the decision at any level of government.


----------



## jpranch

peach, I have to disagree. The national debate may be over but at the state, county, and municipal level the debate is still going on.


----------



## peach

Many places are writing it out of their adoption process....the more costly it becomes, the less politically attractive it is... (oh in places where you are on a well.. so you need a generator.. and an automatic transfer switch)..

I don't like seeing them mandatory.. I don't disagree that they may be a good idea


----------



## AegisFPE

I was trying to delay raising the volatile cost-issue, and express the level of safety already built-into the codes.  However, cost must be a consideration; to that end, a cost analysis is reached at the bottom of this entry with links to referenced data.

Based on the average of 375,200 reported house fires per year and 0.55 deaths per 100 fires in homes with smoke alarms, we could anticipate 2,064 home fire fatalities per year if every home had a working smoke alarm.  The report identifies that 73% of those deaths occurred in homes with battery-powered smoke alarms only.  We can assume that these would not be interconnected such that occupants in bedrooms may not have been alerted.

That leaves 557 annual home fire fatalities (2,064 x (100%-73%)) who died in homes with hardwired-interconnected smoke alarms.  Assuming every new home meets current code requirements for smoke alarms, this should be the number that installing RFSS in new homes could begin to impact nationwide.

US Census data indicates an inventory of approximately 94,992,034 single-family homes (129,065,264 x (100%-26.4%)) and a population of about 307,006,550.  Based on the current fatality rate of about 2,970 per year in residential fires, that equates to about 3.1 deaths per 100,000 homes annually, or approximately 1.0 per 100,000 people in the US population.  Imagine if every home had hardwired smoke alarms, that number would be expected drop to around 0.6 fatalities per 100,000 homes and 0.2 per 100,000 people.

For perspective, compare those numbers to NHTSA data for last year:

12.25 deaths per 100,000 population

14.47 deaths per 100,000 registered vehicles, and

17.89 deaths per 100,000 licensed drivers.

Despite the greater risk accepted by the public with vehicle travel, it is still a tough choice knowing that about 557 people could potentially be saved annually by installing RFSS in every home.  Maybe people should enjoy a greater safety in their home than on the road, but at what cost?

The value of life can be considered at $129,000 per year of life or $1.54M, which correlates to about 30 years when comparing these two independent sources - seems reasonable.

So, then we could say the value of saving 557 lives is $858 million dollars.  Divide that by the figures reported in the Washington State assessment of barriers to voluntarily installing sprinklers of $1.50 to $8.50/SF and we can buy 101.0 to 572.5M SF of RFSS protection.  Based on an average home size of 2,519SF, that would allow for 40,108 to 227,280 homes to have sprinkler systems installed annually.  That would not even cover half of the half the homes being built in a year, as the US completed nearly500,000 homes last year, over 1 Million in 2007, and around 1.5 Million in the years prior.

Sprinkler protection for 500,000 homes at 2,519SF using the low-ball estimate of $1.50/SF across the board equals nearly $1.9 Billion dollars.  If we rebound to pre-2007 construction rates, the cost of sprinklers nationwide could range from $5.6 Billion at $1.50/SF to $32.1 Billion at $8.50/SF.

Based on this analysis, the cost exceeds the perceived savings such that RFSS does not appear to make economic sense.  Certainly persons desiring RFSS should be able to install them voluntarily, but a mandatory requirement is not cheap insurance.


----------



## AegisFPE

I was trying to delay raising the volatile cost-issue, and express the level of safety already built-into the codes.  However, cost must be a consideration; to that end, a cost analysis is reached at the bottom of this entry with links to referenced data.

Based on the average of 375,200 reported house fires per year and 0.55 deaths per 100 fires in homes with smoke alarms, we could anticipate 2,064 home fire fatalities per year if every home had a working smoke alarm.  The report identifies that 73% of those deaths occurred in homes with battery-powered smoke alarms only.  We can assume that these would not be interconnected such that occupants in bedrooms may not have been alerted.

That leaves 557 annual home fire fatalities (2,064 x (100%-73%)) who died in homes with hardwired-interconnected smoke alarms.  Assuming every new home meets current code requirements for smoke alarms, this is the number that installing RFSS in new homes could begin to impact nationwide.

US Census data indicates an inventory of approximately 94,992,034 single-family homes (129,065,264 x (100%-26.4%)) and a population of about 307,006,550.  Based on the current fatality rate of about 2,970 per year in residential fires, that equates to about 3.1 deaths per 100,000 homes annually, or approximately 1.0 per 100,000 people in the US population.  Imagine if every home had hardwired smoke alarms, that number would be expected drop to around 0.6 fatalities per 100,000 homes and 0.2 per 100,000 people.

For perspective, compare those numbers to NHTSA data for last year:

12.25 deaths per 100,000 population

14.47 deaths per 100,000 registered vehicles, and

17.89 deaths per 100,000 licensed drivers.

Despite the greater risk accepted by the public with vehicle travel, it is still a tough choice knowing that about 557 people could potentially be saved annually by installing RFSS in every home.  Maybe people should enjoy a greater safety in their home than on the road, but at what cost?

The value of life can be considered at $129,000 per year of life or $1.54M, which correlates to about 30 years when comparing these two independent sources - seems reasonable.

So, then we could say the value of saving 557 lives is $858 million dollars.  Divide that by the figures reported in the Washington State assessment of barriers to voluntarily installing sprinklers of $1.50 to $8.50[/url]/SF and we get 101.0 to 572.5M SF.  Based on an average home size of 2,519SF, that would allow for 40,108 to 227,280 homes to have sprinkler systems installed annually.  Unfortunately, the US generally completed nearly500,000 homes last year, over 1 Million in 2007, and around 1.5 Million in the years prior.

Sprinkler protection for 500,000 homes at 2,519SF using the low-ball estimate of $1.50/SF across the board equals nearly $1.9 Billion dollars.  If we rebound to pre-2007 construction rates, the cost of sprinklers nationwide could range from $5.6 Billion at $1.50/SF to $32.1 Billion at $8.50/SF.

Based on this analysis, the cost exceeds the perceived savings such that RFSS does not appear to make economic sense.  Certainly persons desiring RFSS should be able to install them voluntarily, but a mandatory requirement is not cheap insurance.


----------



## jpranch

Aegis, sorry about the cost factor this early in the discussion. But anybody that discounts cost needs a little reality check. Cost is just one point and I hope this thread will stay with the OP.  jp


----------



## conarb

A good argument is the cost of water service, when I challenges the water district raising their rates the district manager told me: "Well if the sprinkler industry can make billions on this we ought to be able to make a few million, we need money too." Most of my building has been homes from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet in Zone 3, so I guess my meter installation charges would be $135,880, where's Homer when we need him? 

View attachment 128


View attachment 128


/monthly_2010_05/ebmud2..jpg.b4ae4971ebde911955616565ec5150ab.jpg


----------



## incognito

First you need to establish a need for fire sprinklers in residential dwellings. Since the inception of required smoke detectors in residential dwellings, how many deaths have you had in your jurisdiction in homes that were equiped with working smoke detectors? You will probably have to gather this info on your own because NFPA and the sprinkler industry have convienently not collected this info. They will cite some bogus reason for the information not being relevant but in the end the "need" for sprinklers is all about the obscene amount of money the sprinkler industry will make. As an example in my jurisdiction of 20,000+ citizens their have been zero deaths in homes constructed since smoke detectors became mandatory in new construction.


----------



## smeismer

Residential dwellings cover a wide variety of buildings.  What about the vacation home or hunting cabin that might be occupied one month of the year?  Does the NFPA standard even allow deactivating such a system when the building is not occupied? If so, how do we ascertain that it will be re-activated later?  I don't believe that there are any such exceptions in the IRC.


----------



## jpranch

......................


----------



## AegisFPE

After further consideration of the economic analysis offered above, it fails to provide a complete picture as to the human toll.

The cost of residential fires to human life was too low, considering only the value attributed to a life, not the cost of care prior to death or the cost of care for injuries that may be prevented with RFSS.

Therefore, the actual cost of burn fatalities should be higher.  If about $1,720 average for fires in homes with RFSS, multiplied by 172,700 fires would be about $300 Million.  This would net a savings of about $5.2 Billion per year in property losses if every home had RFSS.

Adding the $3.6 Billion we arrive at $8.8 Billion dollars to be saved annually, considering human and property damages from fire.  That appears to pencil based on the current annual estimate of $6.3 Billion to put sprinklers in every new home.  Except, as there are many more homes without sprinklers, there may be little to no savings realized for years.  And, if construction of new homes picks up again, it’s not hard for the numbers to be upside down again if annual installation costs of RFSS grows to $12.6 or $18.9 Billion.

So, when considering property damage the costs may somewhat seem to align.  However, this is on a global scale.  Every new home is paying the cost of its new sprinkler system, and may or may not ever experience a fire.  Further, the lender on my home loan requires that I carry insurance – so sprinklers or not, the home is, in some manner, protected.

If the issue is solely life safety, the decision to not adopt RFSS legislation seems justifiable, both from an economic perspective and given that a residential fire survival rate of 99.45% is already achieved with smoke alarms.


----------



## conarb

The best argument against residential sprinklers is the Canada Mortgage & Housing  Study of 1998 still stands as to the effectiveness of money spent, this was confirmed in a followup study in 2005

The best argument for sprinklers is that homes built with roof trusses, I Joists, or one of many forms of styrofoam are so flammable and can collapse so easily and quickly that sprinklers should be required if any of those three materials are used in the construction of homes.


----------



## mtlogcabin

> Based on the current fatality rate of about 2,970 per year in residential fires, that equates to about 3.1 deaths per 100,000 homes annually,





> 500,000 homes last year, over 1 Million in 2007, and around 1.5 Million in the years prior[/url].


Sprinklers would be installed in new homes only so that would equate to saving only 46.5 lives. Sprinklers will not save lives in the existing 85 to 90 million homes that do not have them.


----------



## AegisFPE

Great article Conarb!  MLCabin, I think it would be even less than 46.5 in year 1.

The lengthy analysis above assumes an infinite number of years into the future when all homes were equipped with RFSS.  This was to offer the "best-case-scenario" and limit the proponent's challenge that if this approach were not applied, no advances to provisions may ever be undertaken due to the cost to implement the change.

Regarding year 1: With 95 million homes, where 1 million of those are new, that's about 1.05% of the homes in the nation being new with RFSS.  So, of the 202,500 fires where sprinklers could have prevented injury x 1.05%, 2,131 would be new and have sprinklers.  Based on an injury rate of 38.5 per 1,000 fires, requiring sprinklers in every new home in the nation could theoretically reduce the number of injuries from house fires nationally by 82 people in year 1.

Using a fatality rate of 2.75 per 1,000 fires (557 persons in 202,500 fires) to represent the number that could be saved by sprinklers, where 2,131 of those homes would have sprinklers, that would save about 6 lives in year 1 at a cost of just over $1,000,000,000.00 ($1 Billion) per life saved.


----------



## Robert Ellenberg

There is an excellent argument that the requirement for them could actually DECREASES safety.  Take the documented facts related to deaths in homes with proper moden alarms--more houses being built with modern alarms brings overall safety up.  Now if we add the cost of sprinklers to the already high cost of construction, how many people are now eliminated from purchasing a new home which trickles down, surpressing building and keeping more of the oldest housing stock (without good alarms and other accepted safety factors) being occupied as opposed to removed or renovated?  In other words, if the added cost keeps more people in substandard houses (maybe older mobile homes as well), it has not added to saftety--it has actually taken away from it.


----------



## packsaddle

Falls are the leading cause of death in homes.

If "safety" was the primary goal, building codes would have required padded flooring before they required fire sprinklers.


----------



## ewenme

To take this discussion in a slightly different direction: what would it cost for all those 'old' homes to be retrofitted with inter-connected hard-wired smoke detectors?

The reason I ask: the IRC requires that remodels and additions have hard-wired inter-connected smoke detectors installed, if it is accessible to do so. Otherwise they can use battery operated smoke detectors.

How many building officials actually require the hard-wired inter-connected smoke detectors in remodels and additions when 'it will cost too much'? When do you force compliance as opposed to enforce the code requirements? Just asking.


----------



## fatboy

We require it in existing construction when the attic can be used to to comply, but that doesn't help if it is a multi-story structure.


----------



## Mac

Yes We require the retrofit for hardwired & interconnected smokes in remodels, when accessible, and will accept battery power smokes when not. I believe this is the ICC's way to get more smoke detection into existing homes. The cost is reaesonable compared to sprinklers.

How often do you hear the local newscaster say "The house was not equipped with smoke alarms" or "Smoke alarms were not working"  when reporting on the latest house fire?


----------



## mtlogcabin

We may not be able to get 100% of them hardwired but we do get the interconnection by requiring the wireless interconnected alarms.

http://www.detectorsandalarms.com/smoke-alarms-wireless.aspx


----------



## ewenme

Thank you mtlogcabin. Even the more expensive wireless would probably be less expensive than paying the electrician to run the wires! Excellent rebuttal now for the 'I can't afford it' argument.


----------



## FM William Burns

Be sure to check the One Link detectors if installed a few years ago since there was a recall on them due to battery issues discovered in student housing in MD.  The new models have solved the issue.


----------



## peach

Interconnected smoke detectors are a great idea.. even in a multi level structure (particularly when they insulate the roof and do basement renovations).. no sense not enforcing the code on all floors...  even in old homes... with old homeowners (like a recent one where the couple was about 900 years old).


----------



## mark handler

Last year 3,225 people died in residential fires in the United States and 14,175 were injured.  Affordable technology has been available to fix this problem since the 1970s, but little has been done to implement it, yet these “statistics” repeat year after year.

Scottsdale, AZ has required fire sprinklers in all new homes for the past 15 years and not one person has died in any fire sprinklered homes but there were 13 deaths in homes without.

What are the arguments against residential fire sprinklers?

•	 “SPRINKLERS OPERATE ALL AT ONCE FLOODING EVERY ROOM IN THE HOUSE.”

 Answer:  Only the sprinkler directly affected by a fire will operate, other sprinklers in the system will not go off.

•	“SPRINKLERS WILL LEAK.”

Answer:  The likelihood that a sprinkler will accidentally discharge because of a manufacturing defect is extremely rare.  Sprinkler mishaps are generally less likely and severe than home plumbing system problems.

•	“SMOKE ALARMS ARE ALL YOU NEED.”

Answer:  Fire sprinklers are the only technology that can automatically control or extinguish a fire.  Smoke alarms are essential for every home – including homes with sprinklers.  But smoke alarms are only designed to detect a fire, not extinguish it.

•	“SPRINKLERS COST TOO MUCH.”

Answer:  Increasing demand for home fire sprinklers is driving down cost; in some areas well below $1 per square foot in new construction.  Nationally, a conservative estimate is 1-1 ½ % of the total building cost.  Homeowner’s insurance discounts, ranging from 5% to 30% off premiums, may help pay for sprinkler installation.

•	“WATER DAMAGE FROM SPRINKLERS IS WORSE THAN THE FIRE.”

Answer:  A sprinkler controls a fire with only a tiny fraction of the water used by the fire department hoses.  Sprinklers detect fires early, automatically controlling flames and smoke, and typically limiting damage to a single area.  In about 90% of home fires, only one sprinkler was necessary to control the fire.

•	“SPRINKLERS ARE UGLY”

Answer:  Today’s home fire sprinklers are inconspicuous—smaller than recessed lighting or smoke alarms.  They can be painted by the manufacturer to blend in with custom interiors.  In ceilings, sprinklers can even be completely concealed beneath color-matched plates.

http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/fire/ResidentialSprinklers.htm


----------



## peach

water damage from sprinklers is one reason insurance companies didn't give an insurance break for installing them.. maybe different now... but way back even one of fire inspectors who built a new house chose not to install them.

Properly working, code installed and maintained,  smoke detectors will save lives.. the sprinkler system may (or may not .. but probably will) reduce property damage from the fire.


----------



## mark handler

Home Sprinklers Score ‘A’ in NIST Cost-Benefit Study

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tb2007_1011.htm#sprinklers

Sometimes life-saving technologies seem beyond the reach of the average person. If you put residential fire sprinklers in that category, think again. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) economists ran the numbers. Their benefit-cost analysis found that for new home construction, a multipurpose network sprinkler system that connects to a house’s regular water supply and piping makes good economic sense.

NIST’s Benefit-Cost Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems report, released last month, examines data from 2002 to 2005 to value the economic performance of a residential “wet-pipe” fire sprinkler system. The additional economic benefits from installation of a multipurpose network sprinkler system (the least costly wet-pipe system available) are estimated for three types of newly constructed single-family houses that are also equipped with smoke detectors. The study builds on a prior cost analysis developed by NIST’s Building and Fire Research Laboratory and offers a current analysis of the economics of residential fire sprinkler technology.

According to NIST, the cost in 2005 dollars for adding a multipurpose network sprinkler system to a house under construction was approximately $2,075 for a 3,338-square-foot colonial-style house, $1,895 for a 2,257-square-foot townhouse and $829 for a 1,171-square-foot ranch house. However when a house fire occurs, the estimated benefits of a residential fire sprinkler system include a 100 percent reduction in civilian fatalities and a 57 percent reduction in civilian injuries, a 32 percent reduction of both direct property damage (property losses that would not be covered by insurance) and indirect property costs (fire-related expenses such as temporary shelter, missed work, extra food costs, legal expenses, transportation, emotional counseling and childcare). Houses with sprinklers, in addition to smoke alarms, also received an 8 percent reduction in homeowner insurance premiums, over houses only equipped with smoke alarms.

After subtracting installation costs and weighting the benefits by the odds that a house would catch on fire, NIST economists concluded that, depending on assumptions, the net gain from installing a sprinkler system (in 2005 dollars) would vary between $704 and $4,801 for the colonial-style house, between $884 and $4,981 for the townhouse, and between $1,950 and $6,048 for the ranch-style house, over the 30-year study period. In all cases examined, the researchers found that the data supported the finding that multipurpose network residential fire sprinkler systems are cost-effective.

The United States Fire Administration (USFA), part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), funded the research.

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems (NISTIR 7451) by David T. Butry, M. Hayden Brown and Sieglinde K. Fuller can be downloaded at www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/publications/nistirs/NISTIR_7451_Oct07.pdf.


----------



## peach

what I don't see is anything from the insurance industry...

when I was in Florida..the industry didn't like them (want them.. give you any credit for having them).


----------



## FM William Burns

Having many ties in SE Florida.......things have changed (post 94' when vacating) and savy consumers should shop around.  In Michigan regionally, it's between 6-12% amongst independents and a couple of biggies (on the fire side of the policy premimum) and as mentioned previously, hopefully the fire service will finally persuade those on the hill (been working at it for 10 years) to finally accept the sprinkler incentive act to sweeten the bitterness.


----------



## conarb

And the sprinkler industry propaganda goes on, just look at the meter charges in an expensive area. I thought this thread was about "good convincing arguments as to why not to use sprinklers"?

View attachment 141


View attachment 141


/monthly_2010_05/ebmud2..jpg.0d797e6e7ecb6aae4f66c2da3f72684f.jpg


----------



## mark handler

conarb said:
			
		

> And  "good convincing arguments as to why not to use sprinklers"?


What is the life of your grandchild worth?


----------



## fatboy

CA, in a combination system (P2904) there is no additional tap or meter, it is part of the potable domestic plumbing system, a little extra piping and heads.


----------



## mark handler

Third-Degree Burn Complications

•Infection. Third-degree burns are at risk for infection. Infection of the wound area can lead to sepsis and septic shock.  Septic shock is extremely dangerous for the patient, because their blood pressure begins to drop rapidly. Infection can also cause loss of skin grafts, which means additional surgeries.

•Compartment Syndrome. Damage to muscle tissue can lead to compartment syndrome, where fluid retention (edema) in the muscle tissues results in a tourniquet effect, stopping blood flow.  Muscle tissue damage can be hard to detect, and often requires visual exploration of the compartment.  Left untreated, compartment syndrome can lead to necrosis of deep muscle tissue and sepsis, or in severe cases, limb loss.

•Problems Due to Fluid Loss. Fluid loss poses a problem for burn patients because under-resuscitation and over-resuscitation can both result in serious complications.  Consequences of under-resuscitation are renal failure (kidney failure) and multiple systems organ failure.  Consequences of over-resuscitation are edema and local tissue hypoxia or airway obstruction in severe cases.

•Seizures. Children are most at risk for having seizures due to electrolyte imbalance, hypoxemia (low blood oxygen), infection, or drugs.

Scarring of the tissues near peripheral nerves can result in neurological complications.  These include:

•Peripheral nervous system dysfunction

•Central nervous system (CNS) dysfunction

•Seizure disorders

•Symptoms mimicking progressive, debilitating spinal cord disorders

The major cause of death after burns is respiratory tract injury or complications in the respiratory tract.  These include:

•Inhalation injury

•Aspiration in unconscious patients

•Bacterial pneumonia

•Pulmonary edema

•Posttraumatic pulmonary insufficiency


----------



## mtlogcabin

> Scottsdale, AZ has required fire sprinklers in all new homes for the past 15 years and not one person has died in any fire sprinklered homes but there were 13 deaths in homes without.


How many fires have been in the new homes with fire sprinklers.

I have done numerous liability and property insurance inspections for various companies and not one form has ever asked about whether a sprinkler system is installed or not.



> What is the life of your grandchild worth?


I can not protect my grandchildren from all the things that may harm them everyday in life. riding in a car, riding their bikes, fishing by the river bank. swimming, climbing trees or an infected tooth that turned into a blood infection that one almost died from.

To play on ones emotions is not the way to decide what should be mandatory code requirements for everyone else.


----------



## mark handler

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> I can not protect my grandchildren from all the things that may harm them
> 
> .


But you can protect them from fire, just like seat belts help protect from most crashes.

benefits of a residential fire sprinkler system include a 100 percent reduction in civilian fatalities and a 57 percent reduction in civilian injuries, a 32 percent reduction of direct property damage


----------



## mark handler

The same arguments when smoke detectors were required. Cost vs Benifit

The same arguments when seat belts were required. Cost vs Benifit

The same arguments when second means of egress were required. Cost vs Benifit


----------



## packsaddle

I agree with the "cost vs benefit" premise.

It "costs" taxpayers more and "benefits" the NFPA.


----------



## ewenme

An earlier post gave a statistic that Smoke Detectors are 99.45% effective in saving lives. That is way better than anything attributed to sprinklers, and surely better odds than you would get in Los Wages. The only caveat?  The smoke detectors have to be installed correctly and properly maintained [battery backup]. But that is the ICC speak for anything: 'according to the manufacturer's instructions'.


----------



## FM William Burns

You guys..............

View attachment 142



View attachment 142


/monthly_2010_06/deadhorse..gif.b473c45bea6383720af7ea3d1a231d46.gif


----------



## peach

The first "new" car my dad every bought was for a trip from SD to CA... he had to PAY for seatbelts to be installed.. my brother and I traded places in the back WINDOW of that buick most of the way there and back..

My point is.. we survived..  our house had old knob and tube wiring... we survived that too...   we knew how to get out of the windows (another story for another day)..   we didn't have fire sprinklers OR fire alarms...

FM is right.. we may be beating a dead cow (wearing a saddle)... huh?


----------



## mark handler

Ya and now we have indoor plumbing. We evolve, we move on.

You cannot choose which codes you want to enforce.


----------



## texas transplant

No we can't chose which codes to enforce, however state governments and our City Councils can decide what will be enforced.  Right now I am under orders that I will not bring a code update to the City Council that would expand sprinkler requirements past the 06 group of codes, period.    Its kind of a moot point anyway because right now the state has a ban on sprinkler requirements in single family homes.

Maybe economics shouldn't govern what happens with life safety, but there are a lot of folks out there that can make decisions like that and will.  In a down economy you will also see more resistance from the home builders groups etc. to anything that adds cost.

One other reason it is so hard to sell sprinklers in some areas is, when the Energy codes came along, you could sell some one on the fact that their heating and cooling bills were going to go down, show them a calc that indicated this is a good deal (at least some times).   When you talk about safety and increasing safety, where is the pay back.    Put a dollar amount on what good SFR sprinklers are going to do me.  Besides I am never going to have a fire in my house, that only happens to other people, so they are never going to go off and never going to save a life and I spent money on them, what a waste.  (Tongue in cheek guys)


----------



## mark handler

Articles of Interest Regarding the Residential Sprinkler Mandate

http://noburn.com/news/residential-sprinkler-mandate


----------



## peach

Economics should never ever be the reason we do or don't adopt codes.   I'm still standing on, if you want them adopt the appendix that requires them.. it shouldn't be in the body of the code.  Forgo adoping 2009 and see what happens.. or amend it out..

RFS are a good idea... I just don't like they way they became mandatory in 2009 IRC


----------



## mark handler

There was not much uproar when FEMA forced the Incorporating floodplain management into building code. Purely an economic issue, sprinklers save lives, raising the slab 2 inches in the IRC, Purely an economic issue, saves no lives.  Floodplain management is purely an economic issue, saves no lives.

And no uproar.


----------



## peach

raising a slab a couple of inches is not the same cost as a RFS..  more fill.. OK.. I had to do it when last I had a house built.

There was real data to support it.. not so much with sprinklers.


----------



## mark handler

peach said:
			
		

> Economics should never ever be the reason we do or don't adopt codes.    raising a slab a couple of inches is not the same cost as a RFS.. more fill


Economics  Vs Life saving???????????????

circulus in probando (Latin for "circle in proving") or circular reasoning


----------



## peach

we enforce what's adopted (like it or not).. economics of the issue are decided way above our pay grade.

It's not circular reasoning.. outlaw smoking and bad wiring.. many fewer residential fires..

Brent Snyder (bless his soul) told me many years ago that economics are not the right reason to violate the code.  And I agree.. I just have YET to see good quantifable evidence that sprinklers are the answer.


----------



## mark handler

*Peach*

*You are saying  * "Economics should never ever be the reason we do or don't adopt codes. "

*Then you say*

"...raising a slab a couple of inches is not the same cost as a RFS..."

*Like it or not, That is circular reasoning*


----------



## conarb

Mark:You came here a few weeks ago and immediately started beating a dead horse, we have debated these issues _ad nauseum_ , many here were at Minneapolis personally witnessing the fraud perpetuated by the Sprinkler Industry, others even took their bribe money to go and vote for residential sprinklers. I, and others here, sat though the webcast to witness the thoroughly disgusting situation, hospitality suites and all.  Before you stir up the animosity again I suggest you go back to our old Bulletin Board and review the prior heated discussions, here is a good starting point.  The ICC pulled the old board probably because of the heated discussions on this very issue, we all seem to be getting along now, none of us want to go back to the old animosity.I do want to address one statement you just made:



			
				Mark said:
			
		

> Economics  Vs Life saving???????????????


The 1998 Canadian government study showed $38 million per life saved, there are a lot better places to throw money to save lives than fire sprinklers.Mark I do not want to appear to be unwelcoming to new members, I understand that you are an architect and I like and work with architects on a daily basis, I tried to stay out of this but finally figured that somebody ought to tell you that you are beating a dead horse, a horse that got the old Bulletin Board shut down, and at the very least you should review what's gone before on this issue before reigniting those old animosities. To use that link I think you still have to be an ICC member, that long thread I linked you to is only one of many long threads there on this issue, to easily find the sprinkler threads just look for those with a large post count.  Happy reading.Again I want to remind you that this thread is about Good convincing arguments *against* Residential  Fire Sprinkler. 
View attachment 145


View attachment 145


/monthly_2010_06/canadian-study..jpg.94647fde71540428c72ccf51c072aafc.jpg


----------



## peach

I've said it a dozen times.. I think they (RFS) are a good idea... I just don't think it needs to be in the body of the code.. jurisdictions who want them can adopt appendix P (I think) of iRC 2006.. then you've got them... not all jurisdictions are like minded.

Think what you want, mark.. passive protection is always better than active protection.


----------



## mark handler

conarb said:
			
		

> You came here a few weeks ago and immediately started beating a dead horse


*No I’ve been a member as long as you have, 10/09, and I only responded to one sided posts, If you feel that discussion will be the demise of this board then there is no reason for the board. If you do not like or agree to my posts, ignore them or report them to Jeff*


----------



## peach

Just because you are wrong isn't a good reason to ignore the discussion.  We all came in 10/09 .. some of us have a long history with the old ICC BB.

Feel free to leave... or at least consider others' opinions.


----------



## conarb

\ said:
			
		

> *No I’ve been a member as long as you have, 10/09, and I only  responded to one sided posts, If you feel that discussion will be the  demise of this board then there is no reason for the board. If you do  not like or agree to my posts, ignore them or report them to Jeff*


Apparently you didn't migrate over from the old Bulletin Board?  If not you owe us the courtesy to review what's gone before, at least read though the link I've posted, if after reviewing the issue you still feel that you want to reignite old animosities than I think that both sides of this debate should consider notifying Jeff, since this subject has died down many of us are friends again, Hell I even talk to that old irascible Marshal Burns.


----------



## mark handler

ConArb

You have no idea

you owe ME a little courtesy

And I was a member of the ICC webpage before you


----------



## peach

play nice...

RFS are a really sensitive spot for alot of us.

However they made it into 2009 IRC.. they are there.

I'll keep it professional.. everybody else do the same.. nothing personal.

We are code professionals


----------



## FM William Burns

Since this thread has been “reported” to moderators once again............as a moderator I must say that if the OP would like the thread to be stopped, then that person should initiate the request or Admin can choose to put it in lockdown.  Personally, I believe in equal time and the freedom to express one’s opinion and as a supporter of RFS and even one of those who can also accept alternative points of view or measures to protect and provide civilians with a greater means for escape, I would kindly suggest *all* posters should keep their comments “professional” and not personal hence the (tried to be clever gremlin posted previously).



The fact remains regardless of any of our collective opinions or personal passions on the topic, the code requirement is there and likely not to be removed in future cycles.  As others have historically mentioned, the battleground (pro or con) will be at state and local levels.  Again, we are all entitled to our opinions on the matter and this thread as titled is “convincing arguments against” and those who care to continue to participate please keep it civil and professional since I do not see *so far* any prerequisite subject matter to go into lockdown.  Personally, I do not like to block or shut down threads and hope that concerned parties can just agree to disagree and possibly move on to other “hot” passionate matters of discussion.



Everyone here has valid material to contribute!


----------



## Inspector Gift

Thanks, Peach.   I'm glad you keep taking the high road!


----------



## mtlogcabin

> There was not much uproar when FEMA forced the Incorporating floodplain management into building code.


Thats because most jurisdictions already had a FEMA compliant flood plain management program in place.

I agree with others

1. RFS's are a good idea.

2. To watch the voting process was sad and offensive.

3. The battle is still at the local level.

4. Some of the statistics and information is skewed.

5. We will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## incognito

Amazing. This thread was started as "Good convincing arguments against RFS" and gets hijacked into the old debate about how great RFS are. If there was an interest in debating RFS in general, the NFPA lemmings should start a separate thread that encourages discussion from both camps. Enhanced safety gained by RFS is virtually non-existant. Of the single family dwellings built in you jurisdiction since smoke detectors were required in new construction, how many fires have you had that resulted in loss of life in the homes contructed? In my jurisdiction the answer is a resounding ZERO. The fire guys really hated it when they had to answer that question. They try to qualify their answer with various degrees of BS but the answer is still ZERO.


----------



## texas transplant

Well said FM WB.  Thank you.


----------

