IRC requires toilet be caulked to floor?

[Michael Thomas]

Appears that it does:

ICC Bulletin Board: setting toilet over ceramic tiled floor (http://www.iccsafe.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=001418)

[Jerry Peck]

"Re: IRC requires toilet be caulked to floor?"

Always has.

Even the old pre-ICC codes have.

I've never understood how you can 'seal the fixture watertight to the floor' and yet 'leave out some sealant at the back' - just boggles my mind I tell you. ;)

From the last post there:

"
Very nice Dana- bottom line is the code specifies where a fixture comes in contact with the wall or floor,the joint between the fixture and the floor shall be made watertight."
"

followed by

"
I don't see much room for misinterpretation but apparently there is some.
"

Okay, at this point I thought that poster had it down, down pat, but, after reading on, he stated:

"
I do agree that not sealing a slight spot at back side of base is a desired application as it will alert owner and others to a leak at bowl to flange connection as well as allowing any moisture which might develop under toilet to dry up.
"

Let me get this straight - he says ... 'okay, I understand, it needs to be sealed watertight, and, I think that pretty much clears it up so there should not be any mis-understanding, and, by the way, leave an un-watertight opening at the back' ... :confused: Huh!

[Michael Thomas]

What can one say - we've all seen the results.

[Aaron Miller]

It seems like the code says what it says - seal it at the pipe and the base of the fixture.

It's a bit like the escutcheon around a shower arm. I say they should be sealed, but cannot disagree with plumbers that like to leave a small hole in the sealant at the bottom. Makes sense in this context.

Aaron

[Eric Barker]

Now I get it! A few years ago I heard back from a client - plumber came in for leaking toilet base. He ran a bead of caulk around the base and charged $150.00. The following summer I heard of a plumber doing the same and charging $200.00. Until now I always thought that that was one of the more stupid solutions - now I now better. And to think that I've been telling people that it was probably a leaking ring.

[Jon Randolph]

I know that the IRC calls for it, but I recommend that a small section remain uncaulked at the rear. If the ring is compromised and starts to leak, I would like to know about it as soon as possible. Leaving a samll section at the rear uncaulked will hopefully allow some leakage to be visible at that point. If the leak goes un-noticed, what hapens to the floor under the toilet after a year or so?

[Jerry Peck]

I know that the IRC calls for it, but I recommend that a small section remain uncaulked at the rear. If the ring is compromised and starts to leak, I would like to know about it as soon as possible. Leaving a samll section at the rear uncaulked will hopefully allow some leakage to be visible at that point. If the leak goes un-noticed, what hapens to the floor under the toilet after a year or so?

The problem is that, with water being used to clean the floor (from mopping, from splashing out of the tub next to it, etc.), more water will get in under the base of the toilet for a much longer period than from the wax seal.

The wax seal is intended to keep the waste and accompanying liquid inside the DWV system.

Sealing around the perimeter of the base of the toilet is intended to keep unwanted water out.

If the wax seal is doing its job, and if the sealant around the base is doing its job, the space between the two will remain dry.

Why *intentionally* drain water *into* that space?

The sealant around the outside is not related to keeping the waste back if the wax seal leaks, you will see that soon enough anyway, so why compromise the installation by creating a channel for the water it is intended to keep out?

The code says "watertight", leaving a gap makes it "not watertight" regardless of what is used. Might as well not use anything at all - just set the wax ring, set the bowl, and be done with it. If you "would like to know about it as soon as possible" ... then that is the way to do it - use nothing at all.

[Jerry Peck]

The two jonnie bolts do well to hold the rear down, leaving the front with no means of securing other than caulking.

Those anchor bolts are *all* that is needed to properly and securely secure a toilet to the floor flange ... provided that the toilet is set properly. If the toilet rocks or is unstable due to an uneven floor or uneven tile, then lead shims can be fashioned to be wedged in under the base of the toilet to properly level and support it (and not damage the china in any way).

Adhesive caulk *will not* secure a toilet down. That "is pretty much a no brainer.", yes.

If you need to stabilize a toilet, what I've always used (and I got this tip from many different plumbers) is to take sheet lead (like used for the old shower pans, I would just use a lead vent flashing and cut it into a sheet), cut a strip about a couple of inches wide and maybe 6" long, fold about 1" or more over onto itself at one end, hammer it down tight, fold that over onto itself again, hamming it down tight, and continue doing so until it is thick enough to 'not quite slip in under the toilet where the floor is low'. Cut that off the remaining part of your strip and tap that lead shim in under the toilet base. The lead, even hammer to compaction, will deform enough to fit in under the base, use a hammer and a block of wood, tapping it in until the front of the lead shim is even with the edge of the base, then just a little more to leave room for caulk/sealant.

If the floor is really uneven (like some tile is), you may need to do this at more than one location around the toilet base. But the anchor bolts *are* all that is needed properly secure a toilet down to the floor flange, which should itself be properly secured down to the floor.

[Donald Merritt]

I always grout toilets in place after the toilet has been leveled. The grout holds the toilet in place and the toilet will not rock. The bolts just hold the floor flange to the bottom of the toilet and will not hold the toilet in place unless you have an old cast iron flange. Instant grout works great and only cost a couple of bucks.

[Jerry Peck]

The grout holds the toilet in place and the toilet will not rock.

The grout will not hold the toilet stable if it is not set stable. The grout will crack. I have seen lots of cracked and crumbling grout around toilets which was used to try to hold the toilet bowl stable and level. The toilet bowl needs to be set stable and level ... THEN sealed around.


The bolts just hold the floor flange to the bottom of the toilet and will not hold the toilet in place unless you have an old cast iron flange.

IF ... *if* being key ... the plastic floor flange is secured properly, and the proper floor flange is used, and the bowl is set stable and level, the anchor bolts will hold the bowl to the plastic floor flange properly (the bolts only need to keep it down ... as long as the bowl was set stable, with 'being set stable' as the key). I've also seen plastic floor flanges with a metal ring around the top which makes them stronger.

The bowl must be set stable for the wax ring to seal and maintain its seal. If the bowl is not stable and moves, the was ring will fail to seal, or fail to seal over time.

If the bowl is not set stable and level, anchor bolts even into a cast iron floor flange will not hold it, at worst that will crack the bowl base, at best that will leak at the wax ring.

There is no substitute for setting the bowl stable and level ... prior to anchoring it down ... then the anchor bolts only have to hold the bowl down.

[Jerry Peck]

Note: Most home inspections I perform involve at least two baths. About 90% of those have at least one toilet which is loose. This leads me to believe that the plumbers initially installed them correctly, but they loosened up over time. Either that, or we have really incompetent plumbers installing these toilets. These also involve new construction as well. The design we currently have needs to be improved on. Why else do we have so many loose toilets around the country? The same can not be said of sinks or tubs!

"Either that, or we have really incompetent plumbers installing these toilets."

Close.

From my experience seeing many thousands of plastic floor flanges installed the answer to the loose toilets is quite simple:

The floor flange *IS NOT* (in so many of the installations) anchored down at all. I don't care if the floor flange is cast iron, if the floor flange is not anchored to the floor, there is no way for the toilet to be any other than "loose". Neither cast iron pipe nor PVC pipe is going to hold a toilet in place.

The floor flange is the transition connection between the structure and the DWV piping. The piping is sealed and is attached to the rigidly secured floor flange (should be rigidly secured any way). The water closet (toilet) is then securely attached to the floor flange. The wax ring is the sealing gasket between the two. It does not matter if the pipe is cast within a concrete slab or sticking up through a hole cut in a plywood or OSB sub-floor, the pipe IS NOT designed nor intended to secure the toilet in place. That is the job of the floor flange, and the floor flange can only do that job when it is in turn properly secured down.

My guess for all (or at least most) of you loose toilets is: floor flanges not anchored to the slab or sub-floor.

[Jerry Peck]

What I mostly found is corroded and broken jonnie bolts,

Which means they did not use stainless steel bolts or brass bolts, as should have been used. Not a problem with having two bolts. By the way, old, old, old, toilets did come with 4 bolts for securing them down.


or toilets which have just come loose because these inferior bolts have become loose due to the weight, movement, stress and strain of toilets,

The bolts don't come loose due to weight, stress or strain. Again, *IF*, if the toilet is set stable and level, and the bolts are tightened properly, they will be sufficient.


Let's look at the bolts and washers. I have yet to see bolts and washers which can not slide out of place when lowering the toilet into place. Some people are not experienced enough to know the bolts have slid out of the "track" and tighten them anyway.

Again, not a bolt problem, and installer problem.


Which by the way, are not fixed in place at all, and can actually move quite easily out of place if the toilet is bumped accidently.

They are in slots to allow the toilet to be aligned properly. Once tightened, they should stay put.


I say again, poor fastening design is to blame for most loose toilets.

No, all the other problems you mentioned are the cause of loose bolts.


Look at the size and weight of some of these toilets today, and just two small bolts to hold it forever? Never happen.

The larger and heavier the toilets are, the less need for strong bolts. All the bolts do is hold it in place. The more it weighs, the more it is likely to stay in place by itself, un-bolted even. Does a large heavy rock need to be bolted down to keep you from moving it with your foot? Nope.


We will just keep ruining ceilings and floors until a better design comes around. The caulking helps, but is not the final solution.

The reason for the caulking is to keep *other* water out from under the bowl base. The *waste* water is in the bowl, trap, and pipe.

There really is *no* substitute for setting a toilet stable, level, and secure - using the bolts which comes with it (provided the floor flange is properly secured down, of course).

[Brandon Chew]

My $0.02 ... from an engineering perspective.

IMO, securing the toilet only with the two bolts to the flange is a poor design. A better design would securely connect the toilet to the waste plumbing, and the toilet would also be securely fastened to the floor -- each connection independent of the other.

One just needs to look at loose toilets and rotten subfloors reported all across the country to see that the current design could use some improvement.

[Jerry Peck]

Just be smug in your replies. And don't consider that you may be wrong, or that someone else here may have a good point.

You mean like this:


The two jonnie bolts do well to hold the rear down, leaving the front with no means of securing other than caulking. It is pretty much a no brainer.

Saying adhesive caulking will hold the bowl down, and calling it a no brainer. My, my, we must be touchy.

[Charles Rubino]

As a plumber and sewer man, I have installed a countless number of toilets over my 30 year career. If the floor is solid and level, a toilet needs nothing more than a wax ring and two 5/8" Toilet Bolts properly tightened. If the installer knows what he is doing, a toilet will be sealed and remain water tight and odor free until it has to be replaced. Using any type of caulk or adhesive is just an amateur way of sealing an improperly installed toilet.

[Jerry Peck]

(bold is mine)

Opinions are like a#$%holes, everybody has one, including my own. All I know is there are hundreds of thousands of loose toilets out there, most of which have been installed by "plumbers". Are they all incompetent? Or could we improve on an outdated design? I'm sure the insurance companies would agree.

And please note, that most of these toilets do not come loose quickly, it is latent. That is the real problem, the design is not for the long haul. Without a "locking" system, it is doomed to failure.

Look at the typical jonnie bolts supplied with wax rings. Real high quality fasteners! Couple that with a slotted, non-fixed bolt design, two slippery surfaces, high usage, heavy users, and lateral stress. I smell a loose toilet nearby.


PS I know I said I wouldn't post on this again, but it is nice to have people contributing information without trying to embarass or humiliate each other. So I won't let the pettiness bother me. I don't post much here because it generally degrades quickly into "I am smarter than you are" No need for that. Let's just learn from each other.

All within the same post. Nothing like telling us you are smarter than the others. Then telling us you don't like posts like that???

"Or could we improve on an outdated design?"

Sure, put bolts every 2 inches around the base.

"it is latent. That is the real problem, the design is not for the long haul. Without a "locking" system, it is doomed to failure."

That anchoring has been around "for the long haul" and has survived because it works. Like everything else, it works ... when done properly.

There is nothing latent about it, it is not a design problem, it is an installation problem.

Just like installing 100 foot long 14 AWG copper 15 amp circuits and wondering why there is a voltage drop problem - it is not the copper wire, it is not the 14 AWG size, it is that it was misused and run 100 long.

Install a toilet properly - as Charles stated: "If the floor is solid and level, a toilet needs nothing more than a wax ring and two 5/8" Toilet Bolts properly tightened. If the installer knows what he is doing, a toilet will be sealed and remain water tight and odor free until it has to be replaced."

Charles also added: "Using any type of caulk or adhesive is just an amateur way of sealing an improperly installed toilet.", and he is correct there too.

[Jerry Peck]

If you bothered to read the first line of my last post, it said I have an OPINION.

Then ... you stated that you know what was wrong, i.e., you are smarter than everyone else who installs toilets, even plumbers.

THEN ... you stated you don't like posts where the poster thinks they are smarter than anyone else.

You simply cannot have it both ways.


You also have your OPINION. I respect yours, that is the BIG difference.

I also respect OPINIONS, yours too ... when not stated that YOUR OPINION is the gospel truth and don't anyone doubt it or show where it might be wrong.

That is the implication you are putting out here.

Soooo ... you must have heard from Tony M.? :D

I know I have a problem ... when someone tries to tell us all that something obviously incorrect is correct and that it is the only thing which is correct, I do have a problem with that. Yep, got to admit that, for sure. :rolleyes:

[Jerry Peck]

And no, not Tony M. That would be really obvious and one which you could easily dismiss. Many different people here who you offended, some of which you would be surprised, or maybe not.

I could carry this on with dueling posts of e-mails I've received from members here who have the opposite view, but that would only be hijacking this thread into a totally different direction.

That said, you certainly have a way of 'the pot calling the kettle black' with your recent posts against the very thing you continue to do.

So be it.

[Billy Stephens]

A better design would securely connect the toilet to the waste plumbing, and the toilet would also be securely fastened to the floor -- each connection independent of the other.

Brandon,

How would that work on Slab Foundations?

And if the floor fasteners failed a lot of stress would be put on the waste pipe (with not good results.) :eek:

[Matt Fellman]

What a fitting thread for this topic to surface....

Just my $.02..... This is a great board and there is a lot of great knowledge and experience to be had. It's unfortunate that most threads are answered by the same people who must be right or will just keep beating the issue to death until others give up.

I know I would spend lot more time around here if the 'climate' were a bit more friendly. It seems that 90% of the threads digress into some splitting of hairs over a totally insignificant point someone is trying to prove. In the end this does nothing to help anyone inspect houses but, in some odd way, helps feed the ego of a person or two.

[Jerry Peck]

Joe,

The only way to properly reply to long posts is to quote the part being replied to. That is the only way the readers know 'to what' the reply is in reference to, and, more precisely, 'to whom' and 'to what' the reply is responding to. Some posts here reply to an unknown comment from an unknown poster, the reader of those posts must go back and figure out 'to whom' and 'to what' those posts are replying to.

Using individual quotes in no way is ...


trying to belittle them

If one thinks it is, then maybe, just maybe, the problem does not lie in the response, but in the post being quoted.

Whether or not you use quotes when you try to belittle someone (in this case me in many of your last posts above), the intent is obvious, and the execution is taken as the same ... quotes or no quotes.

Saying "John, go jump in a lake." or "John, someone said, and I agree with them, "John needs to go jump in a lake".", the result is the same. In the first, one takes responsibility for their own actions, in the second, they try to pass it off onto others.


How about just answering people in a friendly manner, without trying to belittle them?

Something maybe you should try doing?

In the vast majority of answers, I do it in a friendly manner, using backup to show that they are wrong when they are wrong.

Saying that they are wrong is not doing it in an un-friendly manner ... to some people, there is no way they can be corrected in a manner in which they take it as 'friendly'. To them, anything other than praise is taken as 'un-friendly'.

[Joe Griffin]

Matt, good for you. Someone else with a backbone. Instead of sending personal emails to other inspectors, voice your disgust out in the open.

It may change the environment, or you could be the next "victim" of an "opinion disembowelment".

I'm out of this one. It's interesting to look at my posts now, it's funny how even though I deleted them, they are in other people's posts. HMMM......

[Brandon Chew]

Brandon,

How would that work on Slab Foundations?

And if the floor fasteners failed a lot of stress would be put on the waste pipe (with not good results.) :eek:

Billy,

I think if they can figure out how to anchor a house to a slab so that it doesn't blow away during a hurricane or slide off during an earthquake, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to anchor a toilet to a slab and have it stay put. I agree that it wouldn't be good if the floor fasteners failed while the toilet was firmly connected to the waste pipe -- kind of the same situation if a wall mount lavatory comes loose from the wall. I suppose the anchoring system would need to be designed so that the odds of failure were very low.

I agree with those that are saying that it is possible to to install toilets using the current system and have them not move and be leak free. But the evidence is out there that this system has a high failure rate (maybe due to improper installation, maybe due to loosening over time...I really don't know). Just because you can make the current system work doesn't mean it's easy to do so or that there is no room for improving it.

My main reason for posting on this topic was because I was doing what engineers often do ... I see things and start thinking ... how could I make that better? That gene that engineers have is what got us away from living in caves, wearing furs, and cooking on open fires to living in McMansions with flush toilets and plasma TVs.

Well, I'm not about to roll up my shirt sleeves and design a better toilet mounting system ... nor embark on a crusade to convince the world that one is even necessary. I'll just keep reporting the loose toilets and rotting sub-floor that I find (and caulk that I don't find) and move on.

Brandon

[Billy Stephens]

Billy,

I think if they can figure out how to anchor a house to a slab so that it doesn't blow away during a hurricane or slide off during an earthquake, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to anchor a toilet to a slab and have it stay put.

My main reason for posting on this topic was because I was doing what engineers often do
Brandon

NASA Spent 23.5 mil.to develop a toilet for space.

Just bought ONE from Russia for 19 mil. for the space station.

Heck I'd be Happy if they developed a mandated low water usage Toilet that FLUSHED.

If you have to flush 3 times (Last time with the Plumbers Helper) how are you saving water?


PS Brandon, I have an Engineering background.;)

[Michael Larson]

Heck I'd be Happy if they developed a mandated low water usage Toilet that FLUSHED.
I highly recommend The Vacuity Series (http://www.briggsvacuity.com/)

I have had nothing but good luck with this unit for over 5 years.

[Michael Thomas]

A few years back I started installing ADA height Toto "Drakes" in my rentals. Have not had to plunge one yet.

Toto Drake toilet product review (http://www.terrylove.com/wwwboard/messages2/42891.html)

[Brandon Chew]

PS Brandon, I have an Engineering background.;)

Brother, I feel your pain... :)

[Lon Henderson]

I just had a conversation with a contractor who told me that caulking the toilet is no longer required. I can't find a reference in the codes. Is it gone or am I just not finding it?

:deadhorse:

[Trent Tarter]

I just had a conversation with a contractor who told me that caulking the toilet is no longer required. I can't find a reference in the codes. Is it gone or am I just not finding it?

:deadhorse:
Caulking around the entire base of the toilets is not a good idea in my opinion. If the wax seal develops a leak it can not leak out the sides to alert you of a problem, instead water gets trapped and causes the entire floor to swell up from water damage. I usually apply caulk from the bolts forward, this helps secure toilet but leave areas open so if leaks develop they will not go undetected.

[Jerry Peck]

Caulking around the entire base of the toilets is not a good idea in my opinion. If the wax seal develops a leak it can not leak out the sides to alert you of a problem, instead water gets trapped and causes the entire floor to swell up from water damage. I usually apply caulk from the bolts forward, this helps secure toilet but leave areas open so if leaks develop they will not go undetected.

ALL plumbing fixtures are required to be sealed to the wall, floor, etc., the toilet is required to be sealed to the floor.

There will be plenty of visible evidence that the seal is leaking with the toilet sealed to the floor.

First and foremost, do you really want to allow dirty water, filth, and urine (you know the types of guys I'm talking about) IN under the toilet? I doubt you do, but if the toilet is not sealed to the floor that is precisely what you will get.

And if the wax seal does fail or starts leaking for whatever reason, you want that leakage to run out from under the toilet onto the floor around the toilet? I doubt you do, but that is what will happen if the wax seal leaks and the toilet is not sealed to the floor.

[Lon Henderson]

ALL plumbing fixtures are required to be sealed to the wall, floor, etc., the toilet is required to be sealed to the floor.
Since I made that post last night, I reread the codes and found this:

405.5 Water-tight joints.
Joints formed where fixtures come in contact with walls or floors shall be sealed

This looks like the reference to me......

[John Kogel]

And if the wax seal does fail or starts leaking for whatever reason, you want that leakage to run out from under the toilet onto the floor around the toilet? Yes, if you have ever had a chronic leak that went undetected, rotting the floor and then the wall, yes, you do want to see the leak, even tho it is a stinky leak. :(

Seal the sides and front, leave the back open.

[Jerry Peck]

Seal the sides and front, leave the back open.

Nope - see Lon's post below:


Since I made that post last night, I reread the codes and found this:

405.5 Water-tight joints.
Joints formed where fixtures come in contact with walls or floors shall be sealed

This looks like the reference to me......

You will see the leak evidence somewhere, typically in the floor covering (vinyl, tile grout lines, etc.)

[John Kogel]

Nope - see Lon's post below:



You will see the leak evidence somewhere, typically in the floor covering (vinyl, tile grout lines, etc.)Jerry, in your world of black and white, there is no brown. Cheers. :D

[Lon Henderson]

The semi-funny thing about this discussion is that I went to some plumber's forum to see if I could find the code reference. Not one of them referenced the code but instead just argued whether to caulk, caulk the entire base, or leave the back open. It confirmed for me yet another reason why there is a need for HIs because apparently some plumbers aren't paying attention.

Where AHJs actually inspect the plumbing fixtures, such as new construction, I always see the bases caulked. Based on commentary at that forum, I wonder if the rationale for not caulking the back of the base evolved from the difficulty in getting caulk to the base of the toilet. I suspect that some plumbers came up with a reason that sounded good for not caulking the base rather than figure out a quick and easy way to caulk the back.

It's been my observation that wax seals rarely, if ever, break down if the toilet is secure to the floor and caulking helps hold the toilet in place. In any event, on the list of defects that you might find in a house, no caulk on the toilet base is one of the very minor defects. Or as I like to tell clients, it barely rises to the level of a misdemeanor. But I write it up.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry, in your world of black and white, there is no brown. Cheers. :D

John,

I frequently see brown ... it's in the grout lines around the toilet ... :)

Better there than flowing out from underneath the back of the toilet. :(

[Vern Heiler]

John,

I frequently see brown ... it's in the grout lines around the toilet ... :)

Better there than flowing out from underneath the back of the toilet. :(

Jerry, you need to improve your aim :)

[Raymond Wand]

Oh my gosh someone didn't caulk the base of the toilet! Boy that omission is sure going to blow the deal, someone is going to get sued for not putting that in the report.

Look honey the vendor was thoughtful they used yellow caulk to seal the base of the toilet, Mike Holmes would be proud and Martha Stewart would tell ya to have better house cleaning skills. I can't believe some would actually put this in a report that the caulking was absent at the base, unless of course the toilet is a-rocking due to other cause. My goodness has inspecting come to looking for errant urine staining, and plop-plop fizz-fizz?

I guess I have been remiss for twenty three years of inspecting and for over shooting the runway as a male. ;)

[Lon Henderson]

LOL....my contract explains that even some things that are serviceable or in working order, may have minor defects noted in the report. Just a couple of hours ago, I noted a serviceable toilet not caulked to the floor........no big deal to me or the client.

[Jerry Peck]

Just a couple of hours ago, I noted a serviceable toilet not caulked to the floor........no big deal to me or the client.

Precisely.

You noted it in your report ... but not a big deal to anyone.

I fail to see the problem in doing that.

[Jerry Peck]

Just yesterday I was having a discussion with an electrical contractor about inspectors who make code up as they go - I said that when an inspector says "do it the way I say" or "because I said so", that is an indication that the inspector is out of his league and does not know what the code says or why.

I said that I encourage questions about what I call out and then we look it up in the book - no one can remember everything, and sometimes we "remember" it wrong.

And we have at least two inspectors in this thread saying they do it the way they want to and recommend that practice ... and those same inspectors likely complain when a code inspector says, wants, or insists on something done one way because "they said so".

Kind of boggles the mind that what is good for the goose is apparently, after all, not good for the gander???

Like it or not ... code is code ... *I* don't agree with everything in the codes either, but ... *I* didn't, and don't, get to write the codes ... maybe these guys here know more than the collective minds of the code authorities???

[Jerry Peck]

If I listened to Code too many people would be dead.

Versus your vastly superior knowledge?

Seems to me you have not been paying attention ...

"If I listened to ..."

And you asked them about the code so you (you and them) could see what the code actually says ... or ... you simply listened to them saying what they wanted ... ?

Are you complaining that those code people were addressing what the code actually said ... or ... are you complaining that they were making the code up - like you did?

[Jerry Peck]

Example of minimum CODE. You are allowed to put a light on a stairs that gives you a minimum of 1 foot-candle of light. No thought process was given to protect anyone by this.:mad:

Example of FOLLOWING minimum CODE. You install a light on a stairs that gives you 10 foot-candles of light.

What "No thought process was given to protect anyone by this." do you mean?

Do you mean all the testing and experimentation which went into establishing a MINIMUM level of light for the average person of average eyesight in average conditions?

Doesn't installing 2-foot candles meet the MINIMUM CODE?

If someone has glasses with lens which are 1" thick, the old "coke bottle bottom" lens some people have to wear ... maybe 50 foot-candles is what they need - so, I presume - based on your thinking, EVERYONE needs to be provided with a MINIMUM CODE which requires 50 foot-candles for a stair?

Kevin ... THINK ... then THINK again ... maybe you will get it after a few times of thinking it through.

Here is another example: ADA requirements for wheel chairs were based on an average height man in a wheel chair who had average reach and who did not have the legs extended, the leg extensions were down - now have an elderly woman, with the leg extensions out, with shorter reach, try to use the accommodations which meet minimum ADA standards ... ain't gonna work. I can attest to that from personal experience because my mother-in-law was in a wheel chair, with leg extensions out, and was not the height of the average man, nor did she have the reach of an average man, so the MINIMUM code is supposed to be such that it will accommodate ALL potential handicapped persons?

No different than the IRC being set for minimum accommodations for the AVERAGE person under AVERAGE conditions.

[Jerry Peck]

Kevin,

Here is another example of MINIMUM code and actual installations:

Electrical receptacle outlets are required to be spaced so that no point along the wall line (at the floor) is more than 6 feet from a receptacle outlet, measured horizontally along the floor.

The receptacle outlets are typically placed 12" to 16" above the floor.

End tables are typically 24" or so inches high.

A lamp on one end table which is 6 feet from an electrical receptacle outlet has a 6 foot cord.

Gravity pulls the cords toward the floor, but the lamp is on the table 24" above the floor and the electrical receptacle outlet is 16" above the floor, and the lamp is in the center of a 24" x 24" table, i.e., 12" from the wall.

How is that 6 foot cord on that lamp supposed to reach that electrical receptacle outlet? It would take more than just stretching it tight and stapling the cord to the wall (which, of course, is not permitted anyway).

Codes are only about MINIMUM safety, not good, better, or best practices.

Any builder who says - with pride - that they "Build to code." is simply telling you and everyone else that they build the most unsafe they are legally allowed to build ... that IS what code is.

I've said it here many times before, will say it again, and will likely say it many more times over the coming years: "CODE is the MOST UNSAFE one is legally allowed to build something."

That's right, I said "most unsafe" they are "legally allowed to build", because they are legally allowed to build something that unsafe - safety being relative ... even with all the precautions and checks, double checks, triple checks, quadruple checks with the space program, even then things go wrong and disaster happens, and when that happens it almost always results in the loss of several highly skilled and highly trained people - Apollo 13 made it back as one of the all time greatest exceptions to that ... out in space with only what you have on hand to save your live, and they were able to do it ... but not without help from the people here on earth.

[Rick Cantrell]

Jerry
If you truly think you can reason with the unreasonable, you should consider contacting the State Department. They need you.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry
If you truly think you can reason with the unreasonable, you should consider contacting the State Department. They need you.

Rick,

I should apply to the State Department, probably pay better than trying to reason with unreasonable contractors on a daily basis. :)

[Jerry Peck]

10 foot-candles would be great. 1 is pathetic.
You can't argue with me Jerry that this portion along with many many other things in the code should have been changed.

"You can't argue with me Jerry that this portion along with many many other things in the code should have been changed."

Actually, I can debate with you, although as Rick pointed out this is going to be pointless to do so.

You get up in the middle of the night, you have a need or reason to go downstairs, you turn the stair light on and ... Who to heck turned the sun on ... I can't see ... OMG! (as you fall down the stairs because the light is TOO bright).

Recognizing that Rick is correct that trying to reason with an unreasonable person is, well, it is unreasonable to expect any positive result - you can carry on for however many more posts you choose to do so. I, however, will just read your posts and shake my head acknowledging your lack of comprehension of the issue.

[Jerry Peck]

Allumination of the switch at 1 foot candle.:)


I, however, will just read your posts and shake my head acknowledging your lack of comprehension of the issue.

My head is hurting from shaking it so much. :boink:

[Lon Henderson]

Jerry next time when I get a chance I will see if I can even get a reading of 1 foot-candle. Since I know a regular night light is even more than 1.:focus:

Once upon a time, I used to do some caving. We liked to turn our headlamps off when we paused for a break or eat lunch, etc. After our eyes had adjusted to pitch black darkness, it was surprising how much illumination came from the phosphorus on an old style watch. One measly candle in pitch black will probably keep you from stumbling if you're paying attention and if it isn't pitch black, then you don't need it anyway. However, in a smoke filled hallway, bright lights are a huge difference....but code doesn't and can't anticipate every situation.

:focus::focus: Leaving the back of the toilet base uncaulked is not exceeding code, it is doing less than code. If you install a brighter light on the stairway than code requires, you have gone beyond code. And that is the difference.

[John Kogel]

Hey Kevin. You might stumble down the stiars with a faint light but that doesn't mean you will die. Even if there is a fire. Probably you should go out the window, anyway. :D

Jerry, I say "Replace the wax seal, blah blah", and "seal the front and sides to the floor with silcone caulking."

That verbiage does not countervent or contravent any code that I'm aware of. They can smear the back too if they like.

I don't speak of the code because I am not doing a code inspection, just a humble home inspection.

[Jerry Peck]

Jerry, I say "Replace the wax seal, blah blah", and "seal the front and sides to the floor with silcone caulking."

That verbiage does not countervent or contravent any code that I'm aware of. They can smear the back too if they like.

I don't speak of the code because I am not doing a code inspection, just a humble home inspection.

John,

The IRC specifically call for all - ALL - plumbing fixtures to be sealed to walls, floors, etc., that does not say 'part way' or 'most of the way' - it is required to be sealed all the way around. So, what you are doing would not be in compliance with what the IRC requires.

I speak code and home inspector, and I'm just another humble inspector of either type who likes to get it right, not just the first time but every time (lofty goals, I know, but that is what I try to do ... does not mean that I always succeed at it, but I try to).

[Lon Henderson]

Kevin, et. al.......

Many think doing less than code is acceptable. Sometimes it probably is, but if you go around advising doing less than code, your insurance carrier would probably appreciate knowing that. And if you think doing less than code is better, then you should make your case to the IRC or your local AHJ.

My two cents worth of advice is, do whatever you want in your own home, but recommend code or beyond to everyone else. It's a litigious world and even if you can convince a judge that you know better than the code, that'll be a costly exercise to prove you were right about one measly thing in one measly trial.

[John Kogel]

I thought this was a discussion about silicone and toilets. How does one end up in court?

Poop leaked out at the back of the toilet, so the inspector is guilty?? ;)

[Jerry Peck]

As for this small issue than yes I would rather listen to the wisdom of the past and protect my Client from the failure of the wax ring than a bloody overflow of a toilet.

Now that ... my neck hurts from his complete and total (yes, I now, "complete" = "total", but in case someone did not understand one of them the hope here is that they will understand the other) ...

... his complete and total lack of grasp of ... well ... basically anything.

I suppose outhouses not sealed to the ground is more his style?


Took the horse to water.

Head its head down to the water.

Apparently, the horse drowned instead of drinking from the water.

So we now have a dead horse to ... :deadhorse:

[Loren Sanders Sr.]

Those anchor bolts are *all* that is needed to properly and securely secure a toilet to the floor flange ... provided that the toilet is set properly. If the toilet rocks or is unstable due to an uneven floor or uneven tile, then lead shims can be fashioned to be wedged in under the base of the toilet to properly level and support it (and not damage the china in any way).

Adhesive caulk *will not* secure a toilet down. That "is pretty much a no brainer.", yes.

If you need to stabilize a toilet, what I've always used (and I got this tip from many different plumbers) is to take sheet lead (like used for the old shower pans, I would just use a lead vent flashing and cut it into a sheet), cut a strip about a couple of inches wide and maybe 6" long, fold about 1" or more over onto itself at one end, hammer it down tight, fold that over onto itself again, hamming it down tight, and continue doing so until it is thick enough to 'not quite slip in under the toilet where the floor is low'. Cut that off the remaining part of your strip and tap that lead shim in under the toilet base. The lead, even hammer to compaction, will deform enough to fit in under the base, use a hammer and a block of wood, tapping it in until the front of the lead shim is even with the edge of the base, then just a little more to leave room for caulk/sealant.

If the floor is really uneven (like some tile is), you may need to do this at more than one location around the toilet base. But the anchor bolts *are* all that is needed properly secure a toilet down to the floor flange, which should itself be properly secured down to the floor.

Yes all correct Jerry with one caveat. Some closet rings made in the 60s were made with an iron flange and ABS glue joint. You could rotate it to the correct position to be even from the wall. These iron flanges were only painted and would rust, allowing the closet bolts to pull through. You can see what you have when you pull the WC. (Just a reminder)

- - - Updated - - -


Those anchor bolts are *all* that is needed to properly and securely secure a toilet to the floor flange ... provided that the toilet is set properly. If the toilet rocks or is unstable due to an uneven floor or uneven tile, then lead shims can be fashioned to be wedged in under the base of the toilet to properly level and support it (and not damage the china in any way).

Adhesive caulk *will not* secure a toilet down. That "is pretty much a no brainer.", yes.

If you need to stabilize a toilet, what I've always used (and I got this tip from many different plumbers) is to take sheet lead (like used for the old shower pans, I would just use a lead vent flashing and cut it into a sheet), cut a strip about a couple of inches wide and maybe 6" long, fold about 1" or more over onto itself at one end, hammer it down tight, fold that over onto itself again, hamming it down tight, and continue doing so until it is thick enough to 'not quite slip in under the toilet where the floor is low'. Cut that off the remaining part of your strip and tap that lead shim in under the toilet base. The lead, even hammer to compaction, will deform enough to fit in under the base, use a hammer and a block of wood, tapping it in until the front of the lead shim is even with the edge of the base, then just a little more to leave room for caulk/sealant.

If the floor is really uneven (like some tile is), you may need to do this at more than one location around the toilet base. But the anchor bolts *are* all that is needed properly secure a toilet down to the floor flange, which should itself be properly secured down to the floor.

Yes all correct Jerry with one caveat. Some closet rings made in the 60s were made with an iron flange and ABS glue joint. You could rotate it to the correct position to be even from the wall. These iron flanges were only painted and would rust, allowing the closet bolts to pull through. You can see what you have when you pull the WC. (Just a reminder)

- - - Updated - - -


Those anchor bolts are *all* that is needed to properly and securely secure a toilet to the floor flange ... provided that the toilet is set properly. If the toilet rocks or is unstable due to an uneven floor or uneven tile, then lead shims can be fashioned to be wedged in under the base of the toilet to properly level and support it (and not damage the china in any way).

Adhesive caulk *will not* secure a toilet down. That "is pretty much a no brainer.", yes.

If you need to stabilize a toilet, what I've always used (and I got this tip from many different plumbers) is to take sheet lead (like used for the old shower pans, I would just use a lead vent flashing and cut it into a sheet), cut a strip about a couple of inches wide and maybe 6" long, fold about 1" or more over onto itself at one end, hammer it down tight, fold that over onto itself again, hamming it down tight, and continue doing so until it is thick enough to 'not quite slip in under the toilet where the floor is low'. Cut that off the remaining part of your strip and tap that lead shim in under the toilet base. The lead, even hammer to compaction, will deform enough to fit in under the base, use a hammer and a block of wood, tapping it in until the front of the lead shim is even with the edge of the base, then just a little more to leave room for caulk/sealant.

If the floor is really uneven (like some tile is), you may need to do this at more than one location around the toilet base. But the anchor bolts *are* all that is needed properly secure a toilet down to the floor flange, which should itself be properly secured down to the floor.

Yes all correct Jerry with one caveat. Some closet rings made in the 60s were made with an iron flange and ABS glue joint. You could rotate it to the correct position to be even from the wall. These iron flanges were only painted and would rust, allowing the closet bolts to pull through. You can see what you have when you pull the WC. (Just a reminder)

- - - Updated - - -


Those anchor bolts are *all* that is needed to properly and securely secure a toilet to the floor flange ... provided that the toilet is set properly. If the toilet rocks or is unstable due to an uneven floor or uneven tile, then lead shims can be fashioned to be wedged in under the base of the toilet to properly level and support it (and not damage the china in any way).

Adhesive caulk *will not* secure a toilet down. That "is pretty much a no brainer.", yes.

If you need to stabilize a toilet, what I've always used (and I got this tip from many different plumbers) is to take sheet lead (like used for the old shower pans, I would just use a lead vent flashing and cut it into a sheet), cut a strip about a couple of inches wide and maybe 6" long, fold about 1" or more over onto itself at one end, hammer it down tight, fold that over onto itself again, hamming it down tight, and continue doing so until it is thick enough to 'not quite slip in under the toilet where the floor is low'. Cut that off the remaining part of your strip and tap that lead shim in under the toilet base. The lead, even hammer to compaction, will deform enough to fit in under the base, use a hammer and a block of wood, tapping it in until the front of the lead shim is even with the edge of the base, then just a little more to leave room for caulk/sealant.

If the floor is really uneven (like some tile is), you may need to do this at more than one location around the toilet base. But the anchor bolts *are* all that is needed properly secure a toilet down to the floor flange, which should itself be properly secured down to the floor.

Yes all correct Jerry with one caveat. Some closet rings made in the 60s were made with an iron flange and ABS glue joint. You could rotate it to the correct position to be even from the wall. These iron flanges were only painted and would rust, allowing the closet bolts to pull through. You can see what you have when you pull the WC. (Just a reminder)

[Jerry Peck]

Yes all correct Jerry with one caveat. Some closet rings made in the 60s were made with an iron flange and ABS glue joint. You could rotate it to the correct position to be even from the wall. These iron flanges were only painted and would rust, allowing the closet bolts to pull through. You can see what you have when you pull the WC. (Just a reminder)

"Some closet rings made in the 60s were made with an iron flange and ABS glue joint."

Guess we're back in the 60s again ... :)

VALUE BRAND Adjustable Closet Flange, 4x3 In, Spigot - G1787405 at Zoro (http://www.zoro.com/i/G1787405/?utm_source=google_shopping&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Google_Shopping_Feed&gclid=Cj0KEQjw1NufBRCx8ayaqY2t6KkBEiQA2nLWm_YlZhJX DajmFOXSsoQ3q96dIi-_4xkzLKutCX4r7KEaAset8P8HAQ)

3 in. PVC Adjustable Metal Ring DWV Closet Flange-888-GPM at The Home Depot (http://www.homedepot.com/p/Unbranded-3-in-PVC-Adjustable-Metal-Ring-DWV-Closet-Flange-888-GPM/202274094)

... 'cause their still available. :D

[John Kogel]

Hey, this dumb-ass left a 3" gap in the silicone at the back of all the toilets. Oh, what to do, what to do? ;);)

[Billy Stephens]

Hey, this dumb-ass left a 3" gap in the silicone at the back of all the toilets. Oh, what to do, what to do? ;);)

We all know that's in your bathroom.
*the half bath under the stairs they let you use.
**you didn't leave the little black stubble in the sink again did YA? :mad:

[Lon Henderson]

Tell the buyer to run from this deal. If someone did something this egregious, then no telling what is wrong that you can't see....

[John Kogel]

We all know that's in your bathroom.
*the half bath under the stairs they let you use.
**you didn't leave the little black stubble in the sink again did YA? :mad:Nope, new construction. I wouldn't put my camera in that close to a used one. :D


Tell the buyer to run from this deal. If someone did something this egregious, then no telling what is wrong that you can't see....It shows attention to detail. I guess we discussed the build of the house and never got around to that one. Darn it.

[Frazier Jeffery]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

The grout will not hold the toilet stable if it is not set stable. The grout will crack. I have seen lots of cracked and crumbling grout around toilets which was used to try to hold the toilet bowl stable and level. The toilet bowl needs to be set stable and level ... THEN sealed around.

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]

IF ... *if* being key ... the plastic floor flange is secured properly, and the proper floor flange is used, and the bowl is set stable and level, the anchor bolts will hold the bowl to the plastic floor flange properly (the bolts only need to keep it down ... as long as the bowl was set stable, with 'being set stable' as the key). I've also seen plastic floor flanges with a metal ring around the top which makes them stronger.

The bowl must be set stable for the wax ring to seal and maintain its seal. If the bowl is not stable and moves, the was ring will fail to seal, or fail to seal over time.

If the bowl is not set stable and level, anchor bolts even into a cast iron floor flange will not hold it, at worst that will crack the bowl base, at best that will leak at the wax ring.

There is no substitute for setting the bowl stable and level ... prior to anchoring it down ... then the anchor bolts only have to hold the bowl down. There are composite shims made to tuck under a toilet base for stabilizing the toilet and use flex calk not powder grout I always water test at base before sealing and yes a good idea to leave a small weep hole Building codes can and do get it wrong like smoke alarms in garages for a couple of years then realized they were being disconnected Never did understand dryer exhaust venting to the roof and deck horizontal railings ?

[Jerry Peck]

There are composite shims made to tuck under a toilet base for stabilizing the toilet and use flex calk not powder grout ...

There is also sheet lead which can be folded and hammered to the right thickness to keep the toilet stable, but any shim which is rigid but not like steel should not damage the bottom of the toilet. Composite shims are good for many other things too, such as windows and doors where cedar shim shingles used to be used (and still are in some places) but which do not properly transfer the loads on the doors or windows to the structure as the cedar shim shingles are too soft.


... yes a good idea to leave a small weep hole Building codes can and do get it wrong ...

And, no, it is not a good idea to leave a small weep hole ... people who do not understand the reasoning for building codes get it wrong and think the code is wrong are much more common than the code actually "getting it wrong" - if those people actually understood the reasons behind the code requirements, they would understand the code "gets it right" almost all the time.


... like smoke alarms in garages for a couple of years then realized they were being disconnected ...

A safety device being disconnected is not a reason to "not provide something which is needed", if it was a reason, then we would not have GFCIs as, back in the 1970s and even into the 1980s, some electricians would install GFCIs to pass inspection and then go back and remove the GFCIs, replacing the GFCIs with non-protected receptacle outlets.

That started because the first GFCIs were unreliable and tripped a lot, causing the electricians to constantly replace the GFCIs (so they got into the habit of just replacing the GFCIs after passing inspection) - but, by and large, the reason for the GFCIs tripping was not a problem with the GFCIs, it was a problem with the electricians wiring ... they never had a problem before because there was no GFCI to let them know they were wiring it incorrectly at some point. Once electricians began to investigate why the GFCIs tripped, many found that they were still carrying over old wiring practices from older times and those practices were creating problems, such as connecting ground wires to neutral terminals at switches and receptacles ... that was a common practice for years in many areas - oops, that will trip a GFCI because you now have a complete ground fault, and, yes, that is precisely what the GFCI was designed to trip on ... and they did trip ... who woulda thought that would happen?


Never did understand dryer exhaust venting to the roof ..

There is that not understanding part I referred too ...


... and deck horizontal railings ?

Again, not understanding what codes are about ...

Codes are about MINIMUM safety requirements, not "good, better, or best" requirements.

I personally don't like built in ladders for railings either, that that is a personal decision, not a code requirement ... however, whenever I find them and they do not meet the code, then (like everything else which does not meet the code) I disapprove them.

- - - Updated - - -


There are composite shims made to tuck under a toilet base for stabilizing the toilet and use flex calk not powder grout ...

There is also sheet lead which can be folded and hammered to the right thickness to keep the toilet stable, but any shim which is rigid but not like steel should not damage the bottom of the toilet. Composite shims are good for many other things too, such as windows and doors where cedar shim shingles used to be used (and still are in some places) but which do not properly transfer the loads on the doors or windows to the structure as the cedar shim shingles are too soft.


... yes a good idea to leave a small weep hole Building codes can and do get it wrong ...

And, no, it is not a good idea to leave a small weep hole ... people who do not understand the reasoning for building codes get it wrong and think the code is wrong are much more common than the code actually "getting it wrong" - if those people actually understood the reasons behind the code requirements, they would understand the code "gets it right" almost all the time.


... like smoke alarms in garages for a couple of years then realized they were being disconnected ...

A safety device being disconnected is not a reason to "not provide something which is needed", if it was a reason, then we would not have GFCIs as, back in the 1970s and even into the 1980s, some electricians would install GFCIs to pass inspection and then go back and remove the GFCIs, replacing the GFCIs with non-protected receptacle outlets.

That started because the first GFCIs were unreliable and tripped a lot, causing the electricians to constantly replace the GFCIs (so they got into the habit of just replacing the GFCIs after passing inspection) - but, by and large, the reason for the GFCIs tripping was not a problem with the GFCIs, it was a problem with the electricians wiring ... they never had a problem before because there was no GFCI to let them know they were wiring it incorrectly at some point. Once electricians began to investigate why the GFCIs tripped, many found that they were still carrying over old wiring practices from older times and those practices were creating problems, such as connecting ground wires to neutral terminals at switches and receptacles ... that was a common practice for years in many areas - oops, that will trip a GFCI because you now have a complete ground fault, and, yes, that is precisely what the GFCI was designed to trip on ... and they did trip ... who woulda thought that would happen?


Never did understand dryer exhaust venting to the roof ..

There is that not understanding part I referred too ...


... and deck horizontal railings ?

Again, not understanding what codes are about ...

Codes are about MINIMUM safety requirements, not "good, better, or best" requirements.

I personally don't like built in ladders for railings either, that that is a personal decision, not a code requirement ... however, whenever I find them and they do not meet the code, then (like everything else which does not meet the code) I disapprove them.

[John Kogel]

Codes are about MINIMUM safety requirements, not "good, better, or best" requirements.OK, how does a gap in the silicone become a safety concern?
Slippery sewage leaking out and tripping us? No, the gap is at the back.

The toilet is sealed to the floor, good. A gap at the back is a refinement that makes it Better.

[Jerry Peck]

OK, how does a gap in the silicone become a safety concern?
Slippery sewage leaking out and tripping us? No, the gap is at the back.

The toilet is sealed to the floor, good. A gap at the back is a refinement that makes it Better.

"The toilet is sealed to the floor, good."

"A gap at the back is a refinement that makes it Better."

Huh?

How can it be "sealed to the floor" when there is a "gap at the back"? :confused:

So, like a few others here, you would like any leakage of waste to seep out onto the floor? That sure is a healthy thing to have and promote ... NOT!

[Vern Heiler]

"The toilet is sealed to the floor, good."

"A gap at the back is a refinement that makes it Better."

Huh?

How can it be "sealed to the floor" when there is a "gap at the back"? :confused:

So, like a few others here, you would like any leakage of waste to seep out onto the floor? That sure is a healthy thing to have and promote ... NOT!
In the old WWII movies, didn't your submarine have weep holes in the torpedo tube breach door to warn of sea water still in the tube?

[Raymond Wand]

I would rather know its leaking out than sight unseen and rotting out the floor.

[Jerry Peck]

I would rather know its leaking out than sight unseen and rotting out the floor.

More personal opinions ... and this thread is full of personal opinions saying the same thing, yet those same people who as discounting the code will often times try to back up what they say and call out by wanting code sections.

Either you want the code or you don't ... as soon as you start to pick and choose and not address some things "because you think you know better" ... you are no better than the building official who picks and chooses things that they think they know better and then you see and complain that it should not have been approved.

No more belly-aching about wanting code to support something you think is wrong when someone else thought it was good enough ... it works both ways.

This is going to be great - I can now close my code books and not have to worry about any code questions on this site, because we all "know our way is better and code does not apply when we don't want it too".

:cool:

I can go with that ... DANG! ... and I just replied to a question about code and attic separation - guess I need to go back and delete my response as I can now ignore code questions.

[Raymond Wand]

Thats fine, but you haven't explained why you would and the code would want a leak to go unseen. Codes are not always right, and as we both know some codes are deleted and replaced or updated over time.

As to sewage seeping out and creating health concerns the same could be said for concealed dangers. Besides, thats why we have domestic diva's - to clean up after the male species. Its just good house keeping. Not any worst than a child not making to the toilet and the resultant mess down the hallway... :D

No big deal, in the scheme of inspecting this is not going to be a deal breaker, and I know its not something I call out. However I do check for loose toilets mounts.

Carry on. ;)

[Jerry Peck]

Thats fine, but you haven't explained why you would and the code would want a leak to go unseen.


Again, lack of understanding the code.

No one said the code "would want a leak to go unseen" - you seem to be ignoring the fact that by the time the leak was visible that the damage to the structure/floor has already been done/has been started.

The code is addressing the sanitary aspect of having sewage leaking into the living space, along with the sewer gas leaking into the living space.

That's okay, everyone here seems to know more than the code, so be it.

[Lon Henderson]

The code is addressing the sanitary aspect of having sewage leaking into the living space, along with the sewer gas leaking into the living space.
I didn't know that the code addresses why. Reasons are offered by observers, but have any of the actual code writers told us what problem they are addressing with this requirement.

[Raymond Wand]

Jerry

If I follow your logic its irrelevant if the leak has already caused damage, the fact remains its likely going to be found sooner with a gap than without. We don't know if the leak has yet caused damage, that would all depend on how soon the effects of leakage become apparent.

Now that we agree to disagree.. :cool:

[John Kogel]

I dug up some pics for y'all. A toilet was leaking under the vinyl. Vinyl was lapped against the toilet base. So nobody noticed until the baseboard trim started to stink. ;)

[Jerry Peck]

I think you guys are on to something that the code writers didn't consider: weep holes in things which keep water back so leaks can be seen before much damage can be done.

As such, weep holes need to be added to the following"
- roofs so roof leaks can be seen in the living spaces before there is damage to the roof sheathing
- shower stalls so shower pan leaks can be seen before there is damage to the drywall or wall framing
- under tubs so leaks can be seen before there is damage to the subfloor
- plumbing piping so leaks can be seen before there is damage to other components of the structure
- condensate lines so leaks can be seen before ...

Yeppers, you guys are really onto something with those weep holes ...

[Raymond Wand]

I weep for you. ;)

[Jim Port]

Wrong as there is no way to do an Inspection to Code. If you tell me you do Inspection to Code you are full of you know what.
There is no way I would ever have respect for the AHJ not here nor ever.
As for this small issue than yes I would rather listen to the wisdom of the past and protect my Client from the failure of the wax ring than a bloody overflow of a toilet.
I imagine given enough time that will be stricken from the new code but will continue to point this out to my Clients and wait for the AHJ debate to go into the crap hole.

I would rather find a person electrocuted from a failed device than blindly rely on the unknown workings of a possibly defective GFI and thinking I have an don't have an issue. I want to know when there is a problem.

Code inspectors inspect to code everyday. Why would it be so hard for you to acknowledge their expertise or the knowledge of the consensus code making panels?

- - - Updated - - -


Wrong as there is no way to do an Inspection to Code. If you tell me you do Inspection to Code you are full of you know what.
There is no way I would ever have respect for the AHJ not here nor ever.
As for this small issue than yes I would rather listen to the wisdom of the past and protect my Client from the failure of the wax ring than a bloody overflow of a toilet.
I imagine given enough time that will be stricken from the new code but will continue to point this out to my Clients and wait for the AHJ debate to go into the crap hole.

I would rather find a person electrocuted from a failed device than blindly rely on the unknown workings of a possibly defective GFI and thinking I have an don't have an issue. I want to know when there is a problem.

Code inspectors inspect to code everyday. Why would it be so hard for you to acknowledge their expertise or the knowledge of the consensus code making panels?

- - - Updated - - -


Wrong as there is no way to do an Inspection to Code. If you tell me you do Inspection to Code you are full of you know what.
There is no way I would ever have respect for the AHJ not here nor ever.
As for this small issue than yes I would rather listen to the wisdom of the past and protect my Client from the failure of the wax ring than a bloody overflow of a toilet.
I imagine given enough time that will be stricken from the new code but will continue to point this out to my Clients and wait for the AHJ debate to go into the crap hole.

I would rather find a person electrocuted from a failed device than blindly rely on the unknown workings of a possibly defective GFI and thinking I have an don't have an issue. I want to know when there is a problem.

Code inspectors inspect to code everyday. Why would it be so hard for you to acknowledge their expertise or the knowledge of the consensus code making panels?

[Jerry Peck]

Code officials are not trained by maximum training but minimum. That is just one part of the problem.

Kevin,

That just plain does not make sense ... there is no "maximum" to which anyone can be trained ... there is ALWAYS a "better way" to do something more safely ... albeit most of the time that many mean "much much more costly", but the end result is that once it is done that way ... there is still a "better way" to do it more safely ... like trying to find the end of a mobius strip ... ain't gonna happen.

[Jerry Peck]

If you talk to Code officials you will find on occasion they don't like passing certain things also.

Being as that is what I do now ... there are things which *I* "don't like", but ... *I* (nor you) wrote the code.

The code is a consensus document between a lot of smart people where the goal is to arrive at a MINIMUM standard, and that is what they do.

And, being as I am a code official and inspect to codes ... it does not matter what *I* like or do not like, if it meets the code then it meets the code.

It does not matter what *you* like or do not like either, you can say "that this should be changed" until you are red in the face ... it simply does not matter. That is, I believe, what Jim Port was pointing out to you - that it does not matter what *YOU* like or do not like, as a home inspector you cannot "require" ANYTHING to be done or changed. All you can do is "recommend" to your clients to the effect of "You know, I don't like this, and I would not have done it this way, and I think it should be done this other way, etc." ... and if you ever get sued by a seller for killing their deal, you will most assuredly lose and possibly have to buy their house - I sure hope you have a lot of money in the bank when you write reports like that because there are people like Scott P and myself who can easily profit from your arrogance and help take you to the cleaners and the poor house.

You really do not seem to use much common sense (which only confirms what they say today "common sense is all too uncommon nowadays") ... you surely are lacking in "common sense" from your posts on this an other subjects. Not poking you in the eye or anything, just pointing out what you are showing us ... :boink:

[Jerry Peck]

I never tell my Client it has to be done and never act in such a way that you think.

It's not the way I am thinking you act ...

(bold is mine)

If it is not then I make comments that this should be changed.

... It's the way you've been saying you act.

You really do need to get - and keep - your story here straight, otherwise your 'believability' level drops.

Kind of like talking with someone and they say "Well, to be honest with you ... " "To tell you the truth ... " "To be straight with you ... "

WTH??? You mean you have not been honest with me, not been truthful about everything you've already said so far, been leading the discussion in a false direction??? Their 'believeability' level just dropped like a rock.

I was on the stand testifying once and the opposing attorney said "I want you to be honest with me now ... " My response was "Weren't you standing there when I swore to tell the truth, or was that an impostor taking your place?" The attorney stood there stunned, didn't know what to say, went back to his seat, finally said "No more questions."

[Jerry Peck]

At least don't take the literal phrase out of context ...

I didn't take it out of context, I took it in the context in which you used it.


... and never try ever to think you know someone from the posting on a MB.

So ... you are now saying that you are being honest with us but before you were not being so honest with us?

[Jeff Zehnder]

Wow

Has this gone off track??

Jerry and Kevin, you need to take it outside!

- - - Updated - - -

Wow

Has this gone off track??

Jerry and Kevin, you need to take it outside!