Remember the 'residential fire sprinkler requirements' that and the comments circulating around Pocomoke City AND Worcester County? Please read this. It seems Stewart Dobson is trying to "get a handle on their logic."Some people might wonder why I believe the new residential fire sprinkler requirement that’s sweeping the country is a load of bovine-generated biomass.
It’s simple. Advocates argue that some 3,500 people die each year in house fires and that this will help lower that number. But if the main concern of governments is to save our lives — at our own expense — think about this:
More than 51,000 people die of colon cancer every year, according to the National Cancer Institute, 14 times the number of people who will lose their lives in house fires, yet neither the federal, state or local government has seen fit to require us to install an early warning detection system where the sun don’t shine.
I’m trying to get a handle on their logic.
Seeing how my *** apparently belongs to the government, one would think it would want to do more to protect it from far greater dangers instead of demanding only that I water it down in case of fire.
Personally, if all I had was smoke detectors in my house, which I do, and if the alarm sounded, I would get my *** out of there, thus saving it a fraction of the cost.
On the other hand, while we have the Southern Building Code, the BOCA building code and the International Code Council, et al, we do not have a formally adopted Southern *** Code, BOCA *** Code or an International *** Council, which means that for now, anyway, our ***es are unregulated, as anyone who has been to Wal-Mart will attest.
Another factor might be that the zoning code makes no provision for a single-family ***, a high-rise *** and a multi-unit ***, although there is a good argument that Congress would fall in the latter category.
But I’m serious about this. If this is all about saving lives, what’s the difference between requiring people to pay for a sprinkler system they may not want but could save their lives and mandating colonoscopies that they may not want and could save their lives?
Governments will no doubt respond that your *** is none of their business, unless, of course, you are preparing to fly commercially, in which case, they are going to check your *** out before allowing you to check in.
Considering all this, I have a suspicion that this particular aspect of the building code, has less to do with saving our ***es than we are led to believe.
After all, if protecting our ***es is what this is about, a wiser and more cost-effective expenditure would be the $3,000 average cost of a colonoscopy than the average $4,000 cost of a fire sprinkler system, albeit the former costs more on a per square foot basis.
Then again, government’s preference for mandated sprinkler systems over mandated colonoscopies could be more fundamental.
I’m sure that even with the job shortage these days, finding a qualified *** inspector would be difficult unless, of course, you’re flying commercially.
by:Steve Dobson
The Public Eye
www.oceancitytoday.net
15 comments:
A colonoscopy is only good for 10 years so that's still $300 per year. I have a garden hose and a flashlight and can volunteer to do the job for only $50. For an extra $10 I will put some KY jelly on the hose. For another $5 I will wash it between patients.
And sprinkler installation is another part time job?
Yeah, after the hose gets plenty of use I staple it to your ceiling and hang one of those whirly thingees in the middle of the room. Only $50 per room; a real bargain. Oh, one more thing...for an additional $5 I will wash the hose before hanging.
The thing about sprinklers... They're prohibitively expensive to retrofit into an old home. But if you build them into houses, the cost is much lower. This is protecting the rights of the future owners to have a house that is safe from fire.
It's expensive to retrofit just about anything. To save money on health care in general, and colonoscopies in particular, we should utilize umbilical cords from newborns. Just remove from navel and position on the other end with a small LED attached and we have a permanent colonoscope for later use. Invest $50 dollars now, save $3,000 later. Now that's what I call return on investment!
"This is protecting the rights of the future owners to have a house that is safe from fire."
Is there a right to have a house that is safe from fire? Is that in the Constitution? I couldn't find it in the Bill of Rights; maybe it comes under "Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". Oh, that's not the Constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence.
I dont' get how this is protecting the rights of the future owners to have a house that is safe from fire. There are absolutely no guarantees in life! Ask God! Well, except that when we are born, we will pay taxes and at some point die, if the Lord's return hastens.
However, this to me is less about protection as it is about 'regulation' and requiring 'permits'. This will add approximately $1.60 per square foot to the cost for a new home. If the only ones moving to this area is of the retirement age from the cities, guess what, are they going to have this kind of money to do this?
Municipailities with water don't really need this...we are not a large city, we are a small rural town. What the heck is the Fire Department for? Please do not get me wrong, I truly admire and appreciate each of our members of the Fire Department.
I think with a fire hydrant on every block this is absurd.
Further, this ordinance is as 'useful' as the one for 'false alarms' recently passed by our local government. The true purpose is 'money making' and 'government intrusion'.
~signed a homeowner in Pocomoke City
All this from a Mayor who states he doens't believe in 'BIG GOVERNMENT'. As they say, 'the proof is in the pudding'.
Sorry but the walk doesn't match the talk.
Think of the big picture.
It's not just our area, this is STATEWIDE mandate. It has been law in Prince George's county for a while now and there have been no fire deaths in a sprinklered residence there.
The fire department is fast, but not fast enough. It takes them at least five minutes, AT A MINIMUM, to get to a house. By then an entire room is destroyed and the fire is spreading. Your entire house is probably already ruined by smoke damage.
On the other hand, a sprinkler puts it out before it even destroys the room. So you'll have localized water damage and minimal smoke and fire damage. A child sleeping in the next room would survive.
What sold me on this.. Recently in Ocean Pines a man was cooking on his stove. He went to take a quick shower, and in that short period of time a fire started on that stove. There was a small child in one of those bouncy-roller seats. That child would have DIED from smoke inhalation had the fire not been put out by a sprinkler. There was some water damage to the kitchen and the kitchen cabinets were destroyed, but that's it.
It's like the seatbelt law and having airbags. If people had the option to spend $2,000 less on a vehicle if they could get it without seatbelts and airbags how often do you think that would happen? Sometimes we have to be protected from our own stupidity.
Mandating sprinklers will bring the cost down. Over years it will eventually bring fire insurance down as damage is minimized. But the most important thing it will do is save lives. More often than not the fire co will recover a body before it will save someone no matter how fast they are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMusd1Vt8xU Just watch. And pay attention to the timestamp.
I would like to know what the ongoing costs of maintaining these sytems would end up costing a homeowner.
Maintainability is no more than your existing plumbing! Residential systems use the same kind of plumbing as the rest of the house, the standard is much less strict than the commercial systems. Closets don't have to be sprinklered, garages, etc. Only living spaces.
That's bull! my neighbor's got rusted due to local water and they dont even use it anymore!
Just another thing you have to get a permit for!
More $$$$.
Guess we can now do away with the fire department.
PVC doesn't rust.
I'm not buying that 7:02. jmmb is going to post an article soon about a malfunciton of these systems in which a fireman himself claims the store would have been better off financially having a fire than the malfunctioning of the sprinkler system.
I've googled sprinker malfunction and it IS a problem. Sometimes there isn't even a fire and they can't get the darn things shut off. One time it caused over a million in damages to neighboring business when this happened.
Post a Comment