Comments on:

By: Mikey T

Mikey T — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:17:35 +0000

we need sprinklers in every bulding and home bottom line sprinklers SAVE lives. also please by all means use a highly trained profesional

By: Ray Drake

Ray Drake — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 02:57:16 +0000

Man it seems to me that alot of this is being blown way out of proportion I mean anything is better than nothing and as for presure your only going to get about 60 to 65 psi which is a good operating presure for a plumbing system and anyhow do you realy beleave all the heads will be going off at the same time get real sprinkler guys and yes i hold a master plumbing license it dont take a rocket scientist to do this stuff just some common sence so why discourage one another ther is plenty of oppertunity for every one dont be greedy save lives

By: Curtis

Curtis — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:06:20 +0000

Been emailing NFPA about residential dry pipe sprinkler systems. 13D and 13R both have language that imply dry pipe residential sprinkler systems are allowed. However, if quick response residential sprinklers are required, and to my knowledge no such animal exists, what type of sprinkler is approved for residential dry pipe sprinkler systems.

P.S. – I’m aware that antifreeze is an option. This query is specific to dry pipe residential systems desireous in extremely cold climates where the residential unit is used year round.

Thanks,

By: Jameson

Jameson — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 04:58:06 +0000

Count me out … I love sprinklers and am involved in the industry, but having the government mandate them is the lazy way for this industry to convince the public. And let’s just admit it, that depending how many county and state building boards our side can bribe to mandate, or the NAHB can bribe on their side is what is driving this market for the time being.

I have no doubt that our product and service proposition is good – I don’t need or want the government forcing the public to buy my product.

By: V. Merit

V. Merit — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:50:16 +0000

Matt:

I guess you didn’t get an answer to your question. First, do NOT use PVC. You must use PEX to afford you the peace of mind that the sprinkler system supposed to protect you is actually not one of your worst potential threats. Also, you WILL need to to charge the system with Glycol as an antifreeze.

Last, I’m not sure you will need to worry about installing heat in the garage – which would REALLY be a bummer – if you use the PEX and the antifreeze.

All the best.

By: Derek

Derek — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:16:53 +0000

I have been wrestling with the idea of mandating residential fire sprinklers for awhile now. I do notice that most of the people pushing this idea are clearly connected to the business or industry of installing them, ergo they have the most to gain from a mandate. As a professional full-time firefighter, having seen people who have died from smoke inhalation to direct fire exposure, I can say that it is a gruesome death (but no worse than many of the car wrecks I have seen). I cannot justify requiring these to be installed in new construction. Proper construction including firewalls, smoke detectors, and fire breaks can afford someone the same time to get out of the house in case of fire. Most deaths in a residential structure fire come from smoke inhalation. If the fire starts low, as in an electrical outlet, then to a Christmas tree, then up the blinds, the smoke will far surpass the fire in heat at the ceiling (yielding the heads not activating but the house is still full of black acrid smoke). The end result is that if a person is in the room with the fire, say asleep, the sprinklers will put the fire out when it gets hot enough, but the smoke might have already killed the individual. If saving lifes is the true reason behind this, shouldn’t we be mandating that all older houses, not built to current code, be required to retrofit their house with sprinklers? I can honestly say most new houses don’t burn, not like old houses with panelling, or plaster walls. Sure most fire is the contents burning, but the point of proper drywall and construction is to keep that from spreading long enough for the smoke detectors to alert the resident and have them get outside. By the way, most of the houses I have seen burn would burn even with sprinklers because there is simply not enough water to extinguish the fire loads in these houses. What is next, having an inspector make sure that you keep your house clean and safe and that you dont pile boxes, clothes, newspapers and garbage to the ceiling? I agree with a previous post; drunk driving is more dangerous. There are certainly other ways to really improve life safety without mandating that all new construction increase cost by 5% or more. By the way, I keep hearing this 2.50$ per foot price thrown around but I have NEVER seen a real estimate for installation that came out less than three times that. Where does that number come from? It seems to me from the data I have seen that is a low-ball impossible estimate used to bait municipalities into changing current code. I would be ashamed if that was the case.

By: john

john — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:02:08 +0000

tom watkins system should be tested to 150 psi nfpa standards

Dan Plumbers are not Sprinkler Fitters and not fire protection specialists therefore let them stick to plumbing. To everyone who reads the blog and are interested in installing a system please hire with a fire protection contractor its our craft

By: Driveway Gate

Driveway Gate — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:01:32 +0000

The best way to avoid fire is not to create “FIRE”.

*Always secure that children can’t reach any fire paraphernalias.

**Avoid overloading of appliances.

***If accident exist, you should have smoke detector to give you the alarm.

Cheers

By: Ryan J. Smith

Ryan J. Smith — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:25:48 +0000

@Don, thank you for your comment. I believe you have misunderstood my purpose of including the 79% statistic in the Home Fire Safety report. The 79% refers to the percentage of structure fires in residential structures as compared to the total number of structure fires. The point is that of the total number of structure fires in the US in 2006, 79% of them where in residential occupancies. Based on the data available at the time of the report, this 79% represented 412,500 residential structure fires. It is easy to have a mindset of “a house fire won’t happen to me.” I believe this data showing that in a single year (2006), just in the United States there were 412,500 residential fires, is helpful to realize they happen more often than people think. If you would like to further the data analysis with a comparison that includes the total number of residential structures in the U.S. (actually square footage would probably be a better measurement since commercial facilities are typically much larger than residential) compared to commercial structures, then I would welcome your findings.

By: Don

Don — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:24:25 +0000

I have a question for everyone. I you read the report you remember the pie chart. 79% o all fire occur in residential structures. hat is an impressively large figure. That could be worrisome. However, there is information that we do not have to go along with that statistic. That 79% figure is meaningless unless we know the breakdown as to the percentage of actual residential structures in the country. If fifty percent o the countries structures are considered residential then 79% fires would be o concern. However, if eighty percent of the countries structures are considered residential then the figure of 79% is right in the ball park. If that was true we could then say that residences are safer than commercial buildings as commercial buildings have sprinklers and still have relatively the same number of fires.

Something to think about before getting all worried about that 79% number.

Will this post stay posted?