There is some logic to it but it isn't well founded. I've need
reluctant to make an issue on the lack of consistency but afraid the
only result will be a spreading of the insanity. It's a lot like
automatic heat vents in a sprinklered building. They aren't
supported by reality or science but longevity in the code gives them
legitimacy. As for the potential for changing it, again longevity
makes it tough. A lot like omitting sprinklers from the bathroom.
Why is that OK but a proposal for omitting them in the laundry room
with the same statistics for fire deaths as the bathroom (the stated
basis for omission) is rejected. Kinda makes you wonder if the
bathroom omission didn't exist, would such a proposal be accepted today.
It's an Andy Rooney kind of day.
Roland
On Mar 30, 2007, at 7:56 AM, Chris Cahill wrote:
Well I stand corrected. There is a reason finally articulated - a
WA warm
and fuzzy. WAWAF or is that WAWF or WAWUZZY? How far do ya think
that'll
get us on code change proposals - well NFPA 13 Committee we think
this a
good idea based on the concept of WAWUZZY.
Chris
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
