Trading Firefighters for Profit
I got this in an Email today. I don't know the author or where it came from sorry.
It talks about how sprinkles could have saved 9 Firefighters lives and how they are being blocked from becoming a requirement in all new buildings. I thought I would share this with you here so that more people can start becoming aware of what is going on. Firefighters have know this for a long time and now everyone should find out.
SLIGHTLY OFF THE MARK
Nine firefighters died June 18, in a furniture warehouse fire in Charleston, South Carolina. It was the largest number of line of duty deaths in one incident since 9/11.
At this writing that's about all we know with certainty. From what I've seen, my guess is the disaster started with a flashover, when intense heat causes the entire interior to reach its ignition temperature at once and trap firefighters in an instant inferno. That's speculation: First they need time to mourn down there, then will come the investigation.
Investigators will look into the fire's cause, firefighting tactics, and issues such as manpower levels, response times, and decisions made by officers.
I wonder if they'll investigate the construction industry?
The day after the fire I heard something that sticks in my mind like an ongoing nightmare: There were no fire sprinklers in this huge, furniture stuffed building. The irony is that I received an article a month ago, on the subject on sprinklers. This is supposed to be a humor column, so I pass on a lot of serious issues, but this one was forced on me.
Let's start by explaining fire sprinkler systems: water pipes, with sprinkler heads at regular intervals. They're typically engineered for a certain business - in other words, a system for a steel warehouse delivers more water than one designed for, say, a cardboard manufacturer. If the cardboard maker moves into an old steel warehouse, the sprinklers must be reengineered.
One common misconception - thank you, movies and TV -- is that all the sprinklers go off at once, soaking the entire building. In reality, each sprinkler head is individually stopped with a device designed to release water spray at a certain temperature, so most fires are extinguished or controlled by just a few heads near the fire. Is there water damage? Yes, but not nearly as much as portrayed on TV. Without sprinklers, there's still water damage - from fire hoses - in addition to much greater flame, smoke and heat damage.
The most sprinkler heads I ever saw open at a fire was about a dozen, because the heat from a trash compactor fire - which the sprinkler system didn't extend into - kept setting off heads until we got inside to douse the flames. If not for the sprinklers, we'd have lost an entire factory (which instead is still operating, 20 years later).
That disproves another common misconception: that a partial system is a reasonable alternative. In the incident I spoke of the spread of fire was prevented, but a large building was completely filled with smoke. The same thing happens in a partial system, in which areas such as hallways, basements, or upper floors are covered by sprinklers.
In 1980 all of the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas was sprinklered, but fire started in an attached, unsprinklered casino, and filled the hotel with smoke. Eight-seven people died. So a partial system, a poorly engineered system, one that's been shut off or vandalized, or one put out of commission by a crash or explosion - think World Trade Center - can fail.
But there has never been a multiple death fire in a building protected by a full, function sprinkler system.
Never.
Single deaths have happened in small, smoky fires that started close to the victims, especially if they were invalids or incapacitated in some way; falling asleep with a lit cigarette is an example. But between sprinklers and smoke detectors, almost all fire deaths could be prevented, and billions of dollars in property saved. Then, since most fires would be small and easily extinguished, we would stop losing most of a hundred American firefighters killed every year.
So why do building lobbyists fight legislation to mandate sprinkler systems? Why does the construction industry fight each and every attempt to require this life saving technology?
Money.
A certain home builders association even put together a Residential Sprinkler Action Kit. For what? To educate people on the use of home systems? Nah. It was to fight against sprinkler requirements. Sprinklers, which can be installed in new buildings for about $2 a square foot, cut into their profits.
Last time I checked the web site, the Residential Sprinkler Action Kit link was taken down; maybe they figured out they were stepping onto a shaky roof with that idea. You had to be a member of the association to access the details, so I only know it was a tool intended to be used by construction industry lobbyists in fighting pro-sprinkler legislation.
It's important to note that I'm speaking of the top level of the construction industry, kind of their Big Oil. It's the place where money flows up to, while everything else flows downhill. I'm not talking construction workers, foremen, are even local contractors, who are often volunteer firefighters themselves. As long as sprinklers aren't mandated for everyone, it's difficult to provide them voluntarily and remain competitive.
In fact, most contractors strictly obey building codes, and don't cut corners. There's a lot of good quality building going on, and I'm not saying anyone's breaking the law. What I'm suggesting is that the law doesn't go far enough. (And for that, of course, I also blame our legislatures.)
The building in Charleston was about half a century old, built before the latest sprinkler ordinance was enacted, and apparently no laws were broken by the current owners. Doesn't matter. Any building can be retrofitted; it costs more than putting them into new buildings, but if you want to argue about how much nine human lives are worth, be my guest.
All I know is that the construction industry is fighting with all their lobbying might to prevent any new requirements for sprinkler systems, home or business. The reason: It increases the price of new construction, which cuts into their profit. The math is simple: Sprinklers save lives + the construction industry doesn't want them = the construction industry is killing people for money.
Every day a new structure goes up, meets every building code, and waits for the day when a firefighter or civilian will die inside. It's time to require that every new building, regardless of type or use, have a full sprinkler system. Don't tell me firefighters should just stay out of unsafe buildings - tell the civilians who would have died inside that Charleston warehouse if they had. Tell firefighters not to do their job when they never know for sure if someone's inside. Tell the widows, sons and daughters.
Stop killing firefighters for profit.
It talks about how sprinkles could have saved 9 Firefighters lives and how they are being blocked from becoming a requirement in all new buildings. I thought I would share this with you here so that more people can start becoming aware of what is going on. Firefighters have know this for a long time and now everyone should find out.
SLIGHTLY OFF THE MARK
Nine firefighters died June 18, in a furniture warehouse fire in Charleston, South Carolina. It was the largest number of line of duty deaths in one incident since 9/11.
At this writing that's about all we know with certainty. From what I've seen, my guess is the disaster started with a flashover, when intense heat causes the entire interior to reach its ignition temperature at once and trap firefighters in an instant inferno. That's speculation: First they need time to mourn down there, then will come the investigation.
Investigators will look into the fire's cause, firefighting tactics, and issues such as manpower levels, response times, and decisions made by officers.
I wonder if they'll investigate the construction industry?
The day after the fire I heard something that sticks in my mind like an ongoing nightmare: There were no fire sprinklers in this huge, furniture stuffed building. The irony is that I received an article a month ago, on the subject on sprinklers. This is supposed to be a humor column, so I pass on a lot of serious issues, but this one was forced on me.
Let's start by explaining fire sprinkler systems: water pipes, with sprinkler heads at regular intervals. They're typically engineered for a certain business - in other words, a system for a steel warehouse delivers more water than one designed for, say, a cardboard manufacturer. If the cardboard maker moves into an old steel warehouse, the sprinklers must be reengineered.
One common misconception - thank you, movies and TV -- is that all the sprinklers go off at once, soaking the entire building. In reality, each sprinkler head is individually stopped with a device designed to release water spray at a certain temperature, so most fires are extinguished or controlled by just a few heads near the fire. Is there water damage? Yes, but not nearly as much as portrayed on TV. Without sprinklers, there's still water damage - from fire hoses - in addition to much greater flame, smoke and heat damage.
The most sprinkler heads I ever saw open at a fire was about a dozen, because the heat from a trash compactor fire - which the sprinkler system didn't extend into - kept setting off heads until we got inside to douse the flames. If not for the sprinklers, we'd have lost an entire factory (which instead is still operating, 20 years later).
That disproves another common misconception: that a partial system is a reasonable alternative. In the incident I spoke of the spread of fire was prevented, but a large building was completely filled with smoke. The same thing happens in a partial system, in which areas such as hallways, basements, or upper floors are covered by sprinklers.
In 1980 all of the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas was sprinklered, but fire started in an attached, unsprinklered casino, and filled the hotel with smoke. Eight-seven people died. So a partial system, a poorly engineered system, one that's been shut off or vandalized, or one put out of commission by a crash or explosion - think World Trade Center - can fail.
But there has never been a multiple death fire in a building protected by a full, function sprinkler system.
Never.
Single deaths have happened in small, smoky fires that started close to the victims, especially if they were invalids or incapacitated in some way; falling asleep with a lit cigarette is an example. But between sprinklers and smoke detectors, almost all fire deaths could be prevented, and billions of dollars in property saved. Then, since most fires would be small and easily extinguished, we would stop losing most of a hundred American firefighters killed every year.
So why do building lobbyists fight legislation to mandate sprinkler systems? Why does the construction industry fight each and every attempt to require this life saving technology?
Money.
A certain home builders association even put together a Residential Sprinkler Action Kit. For what? To educate people on the use of home systems? Nah. It was to fight against sprinkler requirements. Sprinklers, which can be installed in new buildings for about $2 a square foot, cut into their profits.
Last time I checked the web site, the Residential Sprinkler Action Kit link was taken down; maybe they figured out they were stepping onto a shaky roof with that idea. You had to be a member of the association to access the details, so I only know it was a tool intended to be used by construction industry lobbyists in fighting pro-sprinkler legislation.
It's important to note that I'm speaking of the top level of the construction industry, kind of their Big Oil. It's the place where money flows up to, while everything else flows downhill. I'm not talking construction workers, foremen, are even local contractors, who are often volunteer firefighters themselves. As long as sprinklers aren't mandated for everyone, it's difficult to provide them voluntarily and remain competitive.
In fact, most contractors strictly obey building codes, and don't cut corners. There's a lot of good quality building going on, and I'm not saying anyone's breaking the law. What I'm suggesting is that the law doesn't go far enough. (And for that, of course, I also blame our legislatures.)
The building in Charleston was about half a century old, built before the latest sprinkler ordinance was enacted, and apparently no laws were broken by the current owners. Doesn't matter. Any building can be retrofitted; it costs more than putting them into new buildings, but if you want to argue about how much nine human lives are worth, be my guest.
All I know is that the construction industry is fighting with all their lobbying might to prevent any new requirements for sprinkler systems, home or business. The reason: It increases the price of new construction, which cuts into their profit. The math is simple: Sprinklers save lives + the construction industry doesn't want them = the construction industry is killing people for money.
Every day a new structure goes up, meets every building code, and waits for the day when a firefighter or civilian will die inside. It's time to require that every new building, regardless of type or use, have a full sprinkler system. Don't tell me firefighters should just stay out of unsafe buildings - tell the civilians who would have died inside that Charleston warehouse if they had. Tell firefighters not to do their job when they never know for sure if someone's inside. Tell the widows, sons and daughters.
Stop killing firefighters for profit.
0
-
Name of the game is retrofit!
[8D]0 -
I thought I had heard that this particular building was in violation,......must be wrong!
Used to be a firefighter, so I empathize with the loss.
I would have lost my job that day, as there were no "victims" left in the building, and most of all it was a "fully involved" inferno, not to mention the toxic gases from the furniture.
Should have been clear to someone that roof collapse was imminent, and the scene was a total loss. Time to go into protection mode for any adjacent buildings, not to send more entry personnel inside,........I would have refused. No more job, but still alive nonetheless.
I am praying for the families of the lost!0 -
I don't think it would cost any more to retrofit in a warehouse! Or any type of storage. The only reason to hide the piping is cosmetic or unless the ceilings are so low that they hit the lights and sprinkler heads with a forktruck.
They just don't want to spend anything that they aren't forced to!
"Insurance'll cover it"
imho
Allen0 -
I was the Chief of our local Fire Department for 15 years after I retired from the USN, so I both emphasise with the fallen firefighters' friends and families and understand your anger. All non-residential buildings, as well as all multi-unit housing should have sprinklers. Politicians simply feel that being buddies with the contractors is more important than the lives of firefighters.
Charleston needs a new mayor and a new city council.0 -
My prayers go out to the families of those fallen firefighters and indeed, all firefighters and other first responders. 0 -
I have been a firefighter/paramedic in the Chicago suburbs for a little over five years now. It is sad to hear about any loss, especially this one being the largest group since 9-11. As far as sprinklers go, I dont know what the fire codes are down in Charlston nor do I know if that building would be "exempt" due to it being constructed before sprinklers (not sure of the buildings age). I do know that the building NEVER would have collapsed and taken 9 Firefighters had it been sprinkled. Hindsight is always 20/20 and we can also argue that if they had better accountability for the employees this tragedy may have been avoided. I pray for them, their families, and the men of their department who will carry on their duty without missing a beat. The only thing that us firefighters can do is use this to remember that our job IS dangerous and it can happen to ANYBODY. 0 -
My apartment is in a building built in 1911. Yet somehow I have sprinklers. To me this sounds like a letter or email written before all the facts were gathered. Not one example is actually named, only the claim is made that the building was not up to standard.
I need an example before I buy into the email. There are lots of reasons why things can go bad. Of course I feel bad for the firefighters but if the guy is suggesting the law doesn't go far enough, well he needs to provide a credible reference for such claims.
Again my building is nearly 100 years old, and we have sprinklers. Maybe they don't actually work, I don't know, but I can tell you for certain they are in every room. This concerned citizen, or firefighter certainly has his heart in the right place, but he offers no actual solution. And for that matter no evidence of what he is talking about.
0 -
quote:Originally posted by Dave W.
My apartment is in a building built in 1911. Yet somehow I have sprinklers. To me this sounds like a letter or email written before all the facts were gathered. Not one example is actually named, only the claim is made that the building was not up to standard.
I need an example before I buy into the email. There are lots of reasons why things can go bad. Of course I feel bad for the firefighters but if the guy is suggesting the law doesn't go far enough, well he needs to provide a credible reference for such claims.
Again my building is nearly 100 years old, and we have sprinklers. Maybe they don't actually work, I don't know, but I can tell you for certain they are in every room. This concerned citizen, or firefighter certainly has his heart in the right place, but he offers no actual solution. And for that matter no evidence of what he is talking about.
The probable reason that your apartment is sprinklered even though it is 100 years old is because it is a structure that people live and sleep in not a retail center with a time limited occupancy.0 -
quote:SLIGHTLY OFF THE MARK
Agree- Been a long time for me, but if I recall a fully involved structure was off limits for entry until containment/control was established. I know there is a fine line there. However my gut tells me Fire ground tactics failed resulting in dead heroes.
Still tragic by any means.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Dave W.
My apartment is in a building built in 1911. Yet somehow I have sprinklers. To me this sounds like a letter or email written before all the facts were gathered. Not one example is actually named, only the claim is made that the building was not up to standard.
I need an example before I buy into the email. There are lots of reasons why things can go bad. Of course I feel bad for the firefighters but if the guy is suggesting the law doesn't go far enough, well he needs to provide a credible reference for such claims.
Again my building is nearly 100 years old, and we have sprinklers. Maybe they don't actually work, I don't know, but I can tell you for certain they are in every room. This concerned citizen, or firefighter certainly has his heart in the right place, but he offers no actual solution. And for that matter no evidence of what he is talking about.
The author is not saying that it was an illegal building, just that if it had been things would have been very different.
"The building in Charleston was about half a century old, built before the latest sprinkler ordinance was enacted, and apparently no laws were broken by the current owners."
This post is just to get people that don't understand sprinklers to think about them and why they are important.
If the postcard picture of the school is your building then it's sprinkled because of the code that says when a building is remodeled to a certain percentage it must be sprinkled/updated or some other code depending on location.
Sprinklers make a huge difference in how fast/far a fire will spread. I have seen this first hand many times.
And yes, after I have watched the videos from the fire my guess is it will come out that they had some bad tactics, but I don't want to "Monday Morning Quarterback" it I wasn't there.0 -
quote:it will come out that they had some bad tactics,
Tactics were good, The time of the implemented Tactics were bad.
You don't send guys back into a a structure thats all ready fully involved, with the integrity of the building is at risk. Bad mojo
and mop up.0 -
I was not commenting on his intent, only the fact that he didn't reference anything, and well the only old structure I had to reference off the top of my head is the building I live in. I have spent alot of time with, and I know several fire control engineers, they design this stuff for a living, I have never heard mention that they feel thier hands are tied in designing a fire control system. The last time I was speaking to one of these guys I know (Wednesday night) they really appear to find thier work a point of pride, and don't really convey that they are constantly limited by the upper echelon of the construction business. 0 -
The firefighters were conducting a rescue. Differant rules apply to a rescue vice an empty building. If there were no people inside I am sure that they would not have entered. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
13 comments