Year
Total Fires
Total Civilian Fatalities
Total Civilian Deaths Per 1000 Fires
Residential Fires
Residential Civilian Fatalities
Civilian Deaths Per 1000 Residential Fires
Home Fires
Home Civilian Fatalities
Civilian Deaths Per 1000 Home Fires
1977
3264000
7395
2.27
750000
6135
8.18
723500
5865
8.11
1978
2817500
7710
2.74
730500
6182
8.46
706500
6015
8.51
1979
2845500
7575
2.66
721500
5765
7.99
696500
5500
7.90
1980
2988000
6505
2.18
757500
5446
7.19
734000
5200
7.08
1981
2893500
6700
2.32
733000
5540
7.56
711000
5400
7.59
1982
2538000
6020
2.37
676500
4940
7.30
654500
4820
7.36
1983
2326500
5920
2.54
641500
4820
7.51
625500
4670
7.47
1984
2343000
5240
2.24
623000
4240
6.81
605500
4075
6.73
1985
2371000
6185
2.61
622000
5025
8.08
606000
4885
8.06
1986
2271500
5850
2.58
581500
4770
8.20
565500
4655
8.23
1987
2330000
5810
2.49
551500
4660
8.45
536500
4570
8.52
1988
2436500
6215
2.55
552500
5065
9.17
537500
4955
9.22
1989
2115000
5410
2.56
613500
4435
7.23
498500
4335
8.70
1990
2019000
5195
2.57
467000
4115
8.81
454500
4050
8.91
1991
2041500
4465
2.19
478000
3575
7.48
464500
3500
7.53
1992
1964500
4730
2.41
472000
3765
7.98
459000
3705
8.07
1993
1952500
4635
2.37
470000
3835
8.16
458000
3720
8.12
1994
2054500
4275
2.08
451000
3465
7.68
438000
3425
7.82
1995
1965500
4585
2.33
425500
3695
8.68
414000
3640
8.79
1996
1975000
4990
2.53
428000
4080
9.53
417000
4035
9.68
1997
1795000
4050
2.26
406500
3390
8.34
395500
3360
8.50
1998
1755500
4035
2.30
381500
3250
8.52
369500
3220
8.71
Hopefully this comes through in tabular form. What you are looking at is
the data that supports my earlier email. It really jumps out if you put it
in graph form which is a limit of this forum. This comes from NFPA data.
And as you can see it goes back to 1977. What happened between 1998 and
2007 I don't know but I don't have my hopes too high.
Now no one take this wrong, John, I and others are on the same side. We are
at best debating some of the nuances of the same conclusion. I offer this
information as I won't be in Rochester. If some of you carry forth more
information all the better.
I agree John with your statements about smoke detectors back then not being
common. But if I read your statement right "Lets not omit the effect smoke
alarms have had on residential life safety, their implementation has cut the
death rate in the vicinity of 50% from pre smoke alarm period." I think the
data suggests otherwise.
The death rates are nearly the same pre-smoke detectors and post smoke
detectors. So I conclude smoke detectors aren't all they are cracked up to
be. The rates are nearly the same based on "old codes vs. new codes". So I
conclude codes haven't in themselves reduced the rate. The total number of
deaths have decreased by 50% but the total number of fires have also
decreased by 50%. So I conclude the reduced number of death is due nearly
directly to the reduced number of fires. Why has the number of fires gone
down? It sure wasn't smoke detectors.
Think about it the typical ionization detector while cheap doesn't do as
good a job with slow smoldering fires. As recent news special reports
suggest kids don't respond appropriately if at all to smoke detectors. The
young and old have much higher death rates. Could this be related. Smoke
detectors don't help the impaired whether from self induced (beer and the
like), medical issues or old age. I'm sure you, as I have, have been to
deaths with working smoke detectors. I still have never met anyone that has
first hand experience in a sprinklered fire death. Although Joe comes close
as investigated one for FM.
I believe we (the fire protection community) have put a 25 year trust and
reliance in the value of smoke detectors. I believed the hype for a time.
I repeated the slogans. I now question smoke detectors as a failed
experiment. When NAHB got up in '00 and said smoke detector were and still
are the answer I presented this data to challenge that assumption. I hope
some one in Rochester does the same.
Chris Cahill, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer
Sentry Fire Protection, Inc.
763-658-4483
763-658-4921 fax
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail: P.O. Box 69
Waverly, MN 55390
Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW
Waverly, MN 55390
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 4:56 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: National Association of Home Builders is orchestrating
majoropposition campaign against residential fire sprinklers
Chris wrote; "On a per 1000 fires basis fires are just a deadly today as 25
years ago."
Chris with all due respect and admiration that would place the statistic at
or around 1982 before hardwired interconnected smoke alarms one on each
level, outside sleeping areas and WITHIN EACH BEDROOM were required in the
residential code, back then CABO . The latter was the key to early warning
since prior to that detection and intimate warning within bedrooms was never
required. In these "alarm protected" properties the survival rate is
significantly improved. Lets not omit the effect smoke alarms have had on
residential life safety, their implementation has cut the death rate in the
vicinity of 50% from pre smoke alarm period. Even the NAHB admits that fact,
yet back in the day these same folks argued AGAINST smoke alarms. Lets use
that same argument to promote sprinklers !
We still have that death gap where merely detecting a fire and alerting the
occupants is not enough and that's the gap we intend to close with
residential one/two family homes and townhouse sprinkler requirements.
The NAHB will argue that that requring sprinklers in homes will not
eliminate the current 2,800 home fire deaths and on that note they are
correct. As noted earlier most fire deaths occur in older housing outside
the reach of the IRC. But that's not the point !. IF WE DON'T START
SPRINKLERING NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION NOW IT WILL EVENTUALLY TURN INTO
OLDER HOUSING AND THE CYCLE WILL CONTINUE.
Start hiring fitters, we're gonna need them.
See you in Rochester !
Yours in Fire Safety
John Drucker
Fire Protection Subcode Official
New Jersey
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: National Association of Home Builders is orchestrating
majoropposition campaign against residential fire sprinklers
>From the NAHB: "The number of fatal fires has dropped dramatically in the
last 20 years as the result of changes in residential construction
technology, improved building code requirements, consumer behavior and the
concerted efforts of fire fighters, home builders and other safety
advocates. This trend continues and is all the more impressive given the
nation's growing population and housing stock."
This is just plain incorrect and the NAHB knows this as I debated it with
them at the ICC hearing in '99-'01 when my proposal to sprinkler all R's in
the IFC got passed. The number of fatal fires are down but are down by the
same rate as the total number of fires. On a per 1000 fires basis fires are
just a deadly today as 25 years ago. Injuries are slightly up on a per 1000
fire basis. I seem to recall the number is rather stable over time. These
are researchable facts. The other flaw in the NAHB thinking is all new
construction becomes old some day, just define old. When they claimed
triumph in the 70's those new safe buildings are now the "old stock that has
higher death rates". Also, there is a strong tie to socioeconomic factors.
The $350k houses of today will be occupied by the lower end as the upper end
moves to the $1,000k in many years. Now for my opinions (which as you know
I don't often share hahahahaha).
The real improvements are we have less fires plain and simple. Public
education has a role, but I think manufactures making their products safer
has a bigger role. Why are they safer - the legal system! I think the
construction trades are doing better, particularly electrical. Why -
research and codes and the legal system! I don't give much credit to the IBC
or IFC, more exits, non-combustible construction, etc. IMHO don't reduce the
number of fires. But I will give you they might help the large multiple
loss fires like in the Station Fire R.I. I'll also give you the numbers are
skewed because nearly all the fatalities occur in residential which really
don't have many safety requirements in the IBC or IFC. Which is why
sprinkler and forget about it is the way to go. I also don't give home
builders or general contractors too much credit. Without insulting them,
most really don't actually do anything. They hire us and a variety of
others to actually build the thing. And too many of them are just looking
for the cheapest (and not necessarily code complaint) price.
A leader in our State Fire Marshals Office once gave me a code change
proposal that replaced the entire empire of codes. It went something like
this:
Inspect building - Is it sprinklered? Yes, go to next building.
No - Issue order to sprinkler and schedule re-inspection.
Re-inspect - Is it sprinklered? Yes, go to next building.
No - Order it unsafe for human occupancy and schedule re-inspection.
Re-inspect - Is it sprinklered? Yes, go to next building.
No - Order it demolished and put on parking lot inspection list or I guess
the green space improvement list.
Now that's a life safety code!
Chris Cahill, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer
Sentry Fire Protection, Inc.
763-658-4483
763-658-4921 fax
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail: P.O. Box 69
Waverly, MN 55390
Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW
Waverly, MN 55390
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Drucker
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 5:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: National Association of Home Builders is orchestrating major
opposition campaign against residential fire sprinklers
Fierce Fire Sprinkler Debate Expected at ICC Hearings
April 23, 2007 - NAHB leaders are preparing for intense debate over
mandatory fire sprinklers during the International Code Council Final Action
Hearings May 21-26 in Rochester, N.Y.
At issue is whether to move sprinkler requirements from the appendix into
the main body of the 2006 International Residential Code, which governs
about 95% of new home construction. That move would make fire sprinkler
systems required in one- and two-family homes and townhouses.
NAHB is opposed to the amendment that would move the requirements, and is
supported by many building officials who agree that code provisions
adequately provide for fire safety without needing mandatory sprinklers.
IRC amendments will be discussed May 22-23. The sprinkler amendment at issue
is IRC proposal RB-114.
Proponents of fire sprinkler systems are encouraging their supporters to go
to the hearings and sway the vote. They say sprinkler systems add an average
of only $1.00 to $1.50 per square foot to the cost of a home.
However, an NAHB survey of installation costs in jurisdictions where
sprinklers are required demonstrates that the cost to builders can be as
high as $6.88 per square foot. Prices like that have a significant impact on
housing affordability - preventing families who rent substandard housing
from purchasing a newer, safer home, NAHB has found.
A Smoke Alarms Work Web site was created by NAHB as a public safety tool and
to remind home owners to maintain their smoke alarm systems. The site
includes helpful information about fire safety, as well:
The number of fatal fires has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years as
the result of changes in residential construction technology, improved
building code requirements, consumer behavior and the concerted efforts of
fire fighters, home builders and other safety advocates. This trend
continues and is all the more impressive given the nation's growing
population and housing stock.
>From 1979 to 2003, the rate of death from house fires dropped by more than
58%, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control. That trend will
continue as more new housing stock is constructed and especially as home
owners are educated to maintain their smoke alarm systems.
U.S. Fire Administration and National Fire Protection Association data
continue to affirm that the vast majority of home fire fatalities occur when
there are no operational smoke alarms. Based on a 2006 U.S. Fire
Administration study on the presence of working smoke alarms in residential
fires, 88% of the fatal fires in single-family homes between 2001 and 2004
occurred where there were no working smoke alarms.
The same study shows that only 3.7% of residential fire deaths were reported
as occurring in homes with working smoke alarms.
"The problem is not homes without sprinklers, the problem is homes without
working smoke alarms," said Sandy Dunn, NAHB's first vice president. "The
most proven, practical and affordable measure to preventing fire fatalities
is ensuring that homes are equipped with smoke alarms and that they are
maintained."
If the sprinkler language remains in the appendix, the choice to mandate
sprinklers will be left to state and local jurisdictions - a choice ICC
officials said they preferred during the last code cycle. "Unfortunately,
some of the very same sprinkler interests who advocated this position in the
last cycle are now leading the charge to mandate sprinklers in the IRC,"
Dunn said.
"It is also unfortunate that they choose to expend so many resources to push
for sprinkler mandates in homes that are already adequately protected by IRC
requirements, especially when the overwhelming number of fire fatalities are
occurring in homes without working smoke alarms," Dunn added.
NAHB is encouraging builders to communicate these concerns to local building
officials and to encourage their attendance at the Rochester hearings to
vote against sprinkler mandates in the IRC. Members can also contact their
local home builders association to find out how to help.
For more information, e-mail Jeff Inks at NAHB, or call him at 800-368-5242
x8547.
_______________________________________________
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)
_______________________________________________
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)
_______________________________________________
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)
_______________________________________________
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)
