« More musical musings .... | Main | Sermon for Sunday »
January 31, 2004
A timely warning?
The news today of a terrible tragedy in Strathclyde has stunned us all. It is a long, long time since we lost eleven people in a residential fire of this sort, yet it is also true to say that it was almost inevitable.
For far too long there has been a reliance on "applying a code" to solve all the fire safety problems, but then, once all the code requirments are in place, everybody forgets about them and we all go happily on our way thinking everything is fine. Then something like this happens and we discover that all the things the code required - and which were there on the day the certificate or whatever was granted - are there no longer or have been compromised because changes have occurred which bypassed them or introduced something not in the original scheme. And it will get worse as more and more "non-fire" staff are employed to do these inspections.
The problem with codes is that you have to understand the origins of them and the outcome the code is trying to achieve to apply it correctly. Most of the codes used in the UK rely heavily on "passive" fire protection - in other words -barriers to contain and slow the spread of fire through a structure. These will only work if everything is installed exactly as it should be, and usually four or five years after installation there are all sorts of breaches which will not be spotted until too late.
There is always an argument about sprinklers - the myth in the UK is that they do more damage than the fire - yet they are "active" protection in the sense that they will hold the fire in check by wetting the area around the seat of fire. And, in contrast to the cretin of a civil servant who spent years as the Head of Fire Policy Unit in Whitehall and who always claimed there was no scientific evidence to show that sprinklers saved lives, there are very few deaths in buildings with sprinklers. Most of those that do happen occur in structures where the sprinklers have been disabled or where the victim was at the seat of fire initiation - in other words, probably started it and died in the attempt.
Slowly the UK is waking up to the fact that sprinklers do save lives and more and more of the residential type premises are being fitted with them. Like anything else this requires maintenance as well - and management of the premises must be aware that any re-arrangment of the walls or of the furniture can affect performance. Sprinklers are not the panacea for all ills, but they do a lot better in most cases than simply letting it all burn unchecked!
Tragically, I doubt very much that the lessons which could flow from this tragedy will be taken onboard by those now "modernising" the service. They insist that fire fighters and fire officers have no need of "qualification" only "competence" counts. They may have a point - up to a point. Qualification is often the only measure we have of a persons ability to assimilate information, understand it, and present it in an intelligible format. Far too many of those driving the "no qualification" wagon are not themselves able to justify their blanket statements in an intelligible manner. Some spout acronyms until you give up, others quote endless and meaningless lists and statistics until everyone else gives up. I suspect that this hides the fact that they are themselves unqualified and incompetent for the task they are managing. Sadly it will take an even bigger tragedy to unmask this than the eleven elderly folk who have died today.
This is where those who have both the knowledge (qualification) and the skill (competence) would be able to identify that sprinklers will help in a fast developing fire by slowing it down, but may not respond to a slow smouldering fire. The reason is that the sprinkler head is a heat detector and will only respond when it exceeds a certain temperature. But, the danger is now that there will be a leap into demanding sprinklers at the expense of other measures when what is required first and foremost is a carefully considered, profesional and balanced approach to find a solution which will offer the best protection in each individual case. There is no such thing as a single solution for all such premises and it is folly to think that there is!
From the initial reports it seems highly likely that sprinklers would not have saved these lives, but it also seems probably that the passive fire protection measures had somehow been compromised to permit unchecked smoke travel. Again this would seem to highlight a need for a careful and balanced approach to fire safety - which requires properly qualified and competent inspectors who fully understand the nature of fire and the measures they are trying to apply.
Pray for those who have died, for those who mourn their loss and for the fire fighters who will not cease to wonder if anything they could have done would have reversed this tragedy. Pray too that those in authority learn to understand the meaning of the term humility and begin to use common sense or at the least, appoint those who do know what they are doing in this field.
For the full report of the fire read on through the link below.
Eleven People Die in Care Home Fire
Eleven people died and seven others were injured after a fire swept through a care home for the elderly.
The fire started on the lower floor of the Rosepark Nursing Home in Uddingston, near Glasgow, shortly before 4.40am.
Police said the fire had not caused major damage but the residents had been overcome by smoke rising to bedrooms on the upper floor.
The seven injured were taken to three different hospitals and one remained in a critical condition.
The home's two dozen other residents were unhurt and had been moved to another home nearby and no one was unaccounted for.
At the scene, Chief Superintendent Tom Buchan said there was "cause for concern" for at least one person in hospital.
The fire is believed to have started in a storage cupboard, investigators said, and residents may have been overcome by smoke as they slept.
Strathclyde Firemaster Jeff Ord said: "All we can say at this moment is that a storage cupboard is being treated as the most likely source on the upper floor."
He told interviewers the fire had been "very small", but generated large volumes of smoke. "The fire damage itself has spread only three or four metres either side of the cupboard, so it is not extensive by any means," said Mr Ord. He agreed the victims may have died in their sleep, overcome by the smoke.
Posted by The Gray Monk at January 31, 2004 06:54 PM
Comments
The barrier between 'Common Sense" and 'Government" is insurmountable in this day and age, for they have created a barrier such that they no longer even have to listen, never mind hear what is being said.
Posted by: MommaBear at January 31, 2004 11:35 PM
You mean they are supposed to consult us? I thought that was only when they think you might have to have an election?
Posted by: The Gray Monk at February 1, 2004 05:57 PM
What a sad way to die, there probably were no smoke detectors in the home. Over in California any house or building built after 1995 has to have a sprinkler in any space over 3 cubic feet. Yes that means your closets. The sprinkler systems has to be tied to a internal and external alarms that emits a 60db sound. It's hard to belive that people are more worried about the water damage then saving lives. Older houses are grandfathered but you can't sell them unless you have smoke detectors in every bedroom.
Posted by: Matthew at February 2, 2004 06:29 PM