Chris, et. al. Please find the following;
http://www.firesafety.gov/programs/alarms.shtm http://www.firesafety.gov/downloads/pdf/white-paper-alarms.pdf Sincerely, John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) New Jersey -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 10:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: National Association of Home Builders is orchestratingmajoropposition campaign against residential fire sprinklers 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
