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
