« VE Day remembered | Main | Stress is good for you? »
May 11, 2005
Proper fire protection
The Monk gets very angry when he hears supposedly intelligent people - particularly people in power, saying completely stupid things about sprinkler protection systems. The most common is the moronic "sprinklers do more damage than the fire!" Qualify that please! Surely you mean that the sprinkler discharge did some water damage, whereas, had the sprinkler not been there at all - you would not have a building left standing! It is this sort of stupid thinking that has allowed numerous developers to evade their responsibilities and not fit sprinklers to buildings that require them.
A high discharge sprinkler head in operation as a demonstration.
It has to be said that the operation of a sprinkler system is something that the average person does not understand. Too many Hollywood movies have depicted the entire system in operation after a single head is triggered - it simply is not the way these systems operate! First of all, each head is independent in operation; each one is a small heat detector; it operates only when its predetermined temperature is reached! In addition, these systems are designed to have only a maximum number of heads in operation - open more than the designed number and the system will fail because it cannot get sufficient water to supply it.
The Civil Service frequently blocks attempts to require sprinklers in schools, hospitals, old age homes, public buildings, and the like using any one of a number of shibboleths they cling to like the idiots they think the rest of us are. You hear "sprinkler operation may cause the floors to be wet and hinder escape", or "sprinklers increase smoke density and may hinder escape", or "sprinklers are for the protection of property and do not contribute to life safety". Really? When last did anyone die in a sprinkler protected building? When last did a building fitted with sprinklers that were properly installed and maintained actually burn down?
Seriously, sprinklers are not the panacea to all ills, but they certainly do the job in 98% of cases, and they do protect both life and the economy.
This government claims to be serious about protecting life and saving life from fire. They have destroyed the fire services, so it's time they considered the alternative - every building will, in future, require sprinkler protection. If they are serious about protecting life from fire then let's see them make this mandatory.
Don't hold your breath, though - the Civil Service believes that burning things down is good for the economy. They must have shares in the construction industry.
Posted by The Gray Monk at May 11, 2005 09:04 AM
Comments
Er... When you say all buildings are you talking about ALL buildings (as in homes) or just public buildings?
Surely all public buildings/businesses already require sprinkler systems? Please tell me the UK isn't THAT backward!
Posted by: Russell Newquist at May 11, 2005 03:36 PM
Out here in California all new homes are required to have a sprinkler in any space over 3 cu feet. And if you live in a older home not retro fitted your home imsurance for fire is higher. I guess the insurance companies would rather pay someone to clean your carpets from the water "damage" then try and replace everything lost when the house burned down.
I hate giving lobbiest any credit but on this they were right. With the dry weather in California a house fire can turn into a grass fire pretty quick and then the rest of the block is in danger
Posted by: skipjack at May 12, 2005 08:18 AM
Sadly Russell, the vast majority of our "Public Buildings" are not sprinklered. Hospitals should be, so should schools, but our ever productive and all knowing civil servants have consistently blocked any effort to require these legally. Anyone flying in through Heathrow or any of the other major airports will look in vain for sprinklers and this applies tro many large shops and to almost all hotels as well.
At regular intervals the Civil Servants running the departments responsible for Building Regulations allow the most amazing relaxations -and then waive the requirement to fit sprinklers - because they would be a "burden" on the developer/owner. Nor will they allow any debate on changing the Regulations to make them mandatory - lest it be a "burden" on business.
I believe there are a number of reasons for this - one of the chief being that the Treasury taxes insurance premiums - the higher the premium, the more they get in tax!
Domestic sprinklers can and do save lives, but again, our cretinous lords and masters in Whitehall won't hear of making them compulsory - even in a block of flats!
Posted by: The Gray Monk at May 12, 2005 11:18 AM
Man, I'm so sorry to hear that. That's all a matter of state and local law over here in the US, not federal law, but most areas here have had sprinkler laws on the books for twenty, thirty years or more! Shile Skipjack's experience of sprinklers required in homes is rare (I don't know of any other area in the US that requires that), it'd be just about impossible to get a building permit or insurance for a large building without them. I can't remember the last time I was in a large building without them, since only the *OLD* buildings are without them now - and many of those have been refitted with sprinklers, too.
As for small buildings and homes, I wouldn't have a big problem with requiring them in this day and age. But I can see why they don't, too. It's much easier to get out of a small building as it is, even without a sprinkler.
Carry on your campaign - this is an important issue. Can't they see just from the US statistics that these things SAVE LIVES?!
I wish I could vote on this one over there to help you out!
Posted by: Russell Newquist at May 12, 2005 03:08 PM
I don't know if you are a member of the fire protection community, but I have never read or seen a more effective, or more informed opinion of sprinkler protection.
Thank you.
Posted by: Maurice Marvi at May 20, 2005 01:34 PM