Thread: New Requirements for Single Family...Sprinkler System

I was wondering what you guys though of the recent code changes where the 2009 IRC will require a fire suppression system in ALL single family residences. It will be effective January 1, 2011.

Similar Threads:

• Single Wall Window Installation
• Odd Purlin Brace (?) System
• Galvanizing Flaking Off Single Vent
• Commercial zone system,
• Chimney fire displaces EHT family - Press of Atlantic City

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

I was wondering what you guys though of the recent code changes where the 2009 IRC will require a fire suppression system in ALL single family residences. It will be effective January 1, 2011.

Good idea, but I doubt that it will be picked up by the majority of the AHJ's across the country. Builders will fight it tooth and nail, due to the extra cost, etc. In my area I have one municipality that requires them on homes over 2500sf. The builders say that it adds about $2500 to the cost of a new home. Pretty cheap when compared to a life or the replacement of a burned out home.

The major problem I have seen is that you really can test them for flow in a residential home. All of the ones I have seen have one toilet in the home that is supplied by the water in the sprinkler system, this is how you are suppose to test this system or so I have been told by the local AHJ. Their theory is that if the toilet flushes and fills then the system has water in it so it should work.

That is about the extent of my knowledge on residential fire sprinkler systems!

Originally Posted by Wayne Carlisle

I was wondering what you guys though of the recent code changes where the 2009 IRC will require a fire suppression system in ALL single family residences. It will be effective January 1, 2011.

I suppose it's fine if you support the ever increasing expansion of the nanny state.

Seems that money would be better spent on other things.

Risk Factors

• Approximately half of home fire deaths occur in homes without smoke alarms (Ahrens 2004).
• Most residential fires occur during the winter months (CDC 1998).
• Alcohol use contributes to an estimated 40% of residential fire deaths (Smith 1999).
  

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

Risk Factors

• Approximately half of home fire deaths occur in homes without smoke alarms (Ahrens 2004).
• Most residential fires occur during the winter months (CDC 1998).
• Alcohol use contributes to an estimated 40% of residential fire deaths (Smith 1999).

And it is somehow better to allow those fires to burn and cause those deaths, injuries, and damage than to install a system with proven ability to put those fires out and save lives and injuries?

Michael, you've lost me on that one.

Why not just insist that those who use alcohol live in homes without smoke alarms?

Why? You ask.

Because, according to the statistics YOU posted:
Approximately half of home fire deaths occur in homes without smoke alarms (Ahrens 2004), AND, Alcohol use contributes to an estimated 40% of residential fire deaths (Smith 1999).

Combine those into one group representing 40% of the fire deaths, that allows the Darwin factor to take over, eliminating 40% of the future fire deaths by eliminating reproduction by that mentally lacking group.

Then, with fire deaths cut by 40%, we are down to 10% homes remaining without smoke detectors (50% - 40% = 10%), meaning 90% of the homes have smoke detectors in them, AND, are occupied by people who don't get drunk and burn their house down.

That's a much more humane way to rid this country of fire bugs, right?

If I am not mistaken I believe in our area the homes 5000 and up require sprinklers. Not sure what the size of the home has to do with anything.

All homes that will have a fire sprinkler system installed will need a minimum of a 1 inch water meter. (not so cheap either) So maybe the stock in water meter companies will go up, you think?
As an aside, does this mean we should rid our selves of wood shake roofs, eliminate wood burning fireplaces, and install a fire sprinkler system?
I vote yes not that it matters.

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

All homes that will have a fire sprinkler system installed will need a minimum of a 1 inch water meter.

You sure?

Or two 3/4" lines, one for the sprinkler system and one for the house.

Our house has a 1 inch water meter anyway, so it would not matter.

Sprinkler systems are tested to 200 psi and the CPVC (BlazeMaster) has slightly different install requirements, so their installation will vary some to from the regular plumbing system.

I wonder, if the house does not have water on it (foreclosure, shut-off for unpaid water bill, etc., does the sprinkler system water stay on? I would think it would have to, or install dry systems with fire department connection capability at FDC standpipes - which would raise the cost even more, and slow the response time as the sprinklers would not activate until the fire department arrived and connected their hoses to the FDC standpipe.

Of course, though, I've never like dry systems for that reason.

Of course, you could have a dry system activated by a fire control panel via solenoid from a pressurized standpipe, supplied with enough pressure to provide fire fighting capacity until the fire department arrives and connects to the FDC to provide extra pressure and capacity. Those types of dry systems work okay.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I wonder, if the house does not have water on it (foreclosure, shut-off for unpaid water bill, etc., does the sprinkler system water stay on?

Not around here. Common meter. When the water gets shut off, everything is shut off. Single supply pipe that splits at the exterior of the house, one side goes to the domestic supply, the other to the fire sprinkler system. Shutoff valves are inconsistent. Sometimes there will be a shutoff valve that turns off the entire water supply (before the split) and another on the domestic supply. Sometimes there will only be a shutoff valve on the domestic.

I will install a fire sprinkler system in any home I ever build, but do not wish for the gov. to start requiring them...........

Any ideas on the in$urance cost savings for having one of these systems in your home?

Originally Posted by Brandon Whitmore

I will install a fire sprinkler system in any home I ever build, but do not wish for the gov. to start requiring them...........

Any ideas on the in$urance cost savings for having one of these systems in your home?

State Farm give an 18% discount (on the fire protection part) in my area if you have a fire suppression system in a home. I think that the discount all depends on the rating that your fire department has in your area. Our local FD has a Class 1 rating in the city limits and a Class 3-5 out in most of the county. The ratings go from Class 1 to Class 10 with a Class 1 being the best.

So at 18% I would save right at $65 a year on my in$urance cost. You do not save on the entire policy, just on the part that covers the home if you have a fire.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

[/list]And it is somehow better to allow those fires to burn and cause those deaths, injuries, and damage than to install a system with proven ability to put those fires out and save lives and injuries?

How safe do you want to be Jerry and who gets to pay for it?

Who is the best to determine what they want or need? The Government or the individual?

I'm all for these systems but it would be the individual not other authorities that determine when to install these very expensive systems.

Michael, you've lost me on that one.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

State Farm give an 18% discount (on the fire protection part) in my area if you have a fire suppression system in a home. I think that the discount all depends on the rating that your fire department has in your area. Our local FD has a Class 1 rating in the city limits and a Class 3-5 out in most of the county. The ratings go from Class 1 to Class 10 with a Class 1 being the best.

So at 18% I would save right at $65 a year on my in$urance cost. You do not save on the entire policy, just on the part that covers the home if you have a fire.

Or you could put the $2,000 in a CD at 5% and make $100 annually.

Your choice and that's what I am getting at.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

State Farm give an 18% discount (on the fire protection part) in my area if you have a fire suppression system in a home. I think that the discount all depends on the rating that your fire department has in your area. Our local FD has a Class 1 rating in the city limits and a Class 3-5 out in most of the county. The ratings go from Class 1 to Class 10 with a Class 1 being the best.

So at 18% I would save right at $65 a year on my in$urance cost. You do not save on the entire policy, just on the part that covers the home if you have a fire.

$65 Hmmm.

You could put the $2,000 in a CD at 5% and make $100 annually.

Your choice and that's what I am getting at.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

$65 Hmmm.

You could put the $2,000 in a CD at 5% and make $100 annually.

Your choice and that's what I am getting at.

I don't think folks install fire sprinkler systems to save on their insurance, but rather to save lives and the house if a fire breaks out.

Kind of like thinking a Hybrid car will pay for its extra cost in fuel savings. It's just not going to happen.

Originally Posted by Michael Larson

How safe do you want to be Jerry and who gets to pay for it?

Who is the best to determine what they want or need? The Government or the individual?

I'm all for these systems but it would be the individual not other authorities that determine when to install these very expensive systems.

Unfortunately, you think you actually have a choice and you chose not to, when in reality the builders are now making that choice for you.

And you thought it was "Big Gobmit".

If not for "Big Gobmit" and their codes, we would still be living in uninsulated huts of sticks which catch fire because of poorly constructed fireplaces - ask Bob Harper, one of the first codes, if not the first code, over here (on this side of the pond) was one covering fireplaces - foisted on those unknowing souls who actually thought it was a good idea ... because they go to live to tell about it.

People like you grew up with certain protections for life, limb and property, not realizing *IT WAS NOT YOUR CHOICE* which allowed you to live and survive that way, but it was *foisted upon unwilling souls* (according to people who think like you) and now you do not want any more protections *foisted upon you*.

Are GFCIs "a good thing"? Would they have come about *WITHOUT* "Big Gobmit" saying they were now required? Not a chance. There may have been a few made, then the companies would soon realize that there was a very limited market for them, if any market for them, and the cost would have been several thousand dollars each on that limited market production capacity.

Before crying "NO MO' BIG GOBMIT", people like you need to take a serious and hard looks at "why you even now exist", because somewhere along the line, your life was most likely saved by some past "Big Gobmit" rule which saved someone else, allowing you to become even a twinkle in someone's eye.

Don't want "Big Gobmit"? Fine, survival of the fittest it is then. Now go out in the woods and survive. Don't come back for 20 years, that is how you will know you survived with interference from "Big Gobmit". May 'The Force' be with you.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

I don't think folks install fire sprinkler systems to save on their insurance, but rather to save lives and the house if a fire breaks out.

Scott,

From Michael Larson's posts of current and past, I suspect he would be standing out there yelling to the fire department to turn off the water, if those idiots were smart enough, they would not have allowed their house to catch on fire. Can't have "Big Gobmit" forcing people to save their lives or their houses, you know.

Unless, of course, it was 'his house', then he'd probably be cursing the fire department out for taking to long to get to 'his' house ...

Some people just cannot, or refuse to, see beyond the nose on their face.

Here in Westchester Co., NY fire sprinklers in one family dwellings (including townhouses) first appeared in the mid 1980's in the Town of Greenburgh. The municipalities in NY State (Towns and Villages) can enact local laws to make their codes more restrictive than the State's (i.e. the City of New York's recent adoption of the ICC series "with local ehancements" and the NY State Code Series (ICC amended) that came out in 2002).

At present there are at least six muncipalities in my area that mandate fire sprinklers in new construction or for major renovations of One Family Dwellings. These systems are installed in accordance to ASTM 13b, and are NEVER TESTED after installation!

With well supplied houses, large plastic holding tanks (500 gal. capacity) and booster pumps are used to get the volume and pressure up the the top most spaces in the dwelling. These installations also usually require an emergency generator to power the sprinkler pump during power losses. The city supplied water systems do not need the generator of course.

It is common here to have a 1 1/2" or 2" water main to supply both the domestic water and the fire sprinkler in a new dwelling. I have never seen a separate main for the fire sprinkler, but I have seen them for irrigation systems. There is a pressure reducing valve on the domestic to get the pressures below 80 psi.

The insurance companies will give discounts with these systems installed. Of course the builder's screamed when this first came out (the plumbers and commercial sprinkler contractors loved it). However one of the largest local developers listed fire sprinklers as the third item on their marketing brochure soon after. It does sell here.

Originally Posted by Evan Grugett

At present there are at least six muncipalities in my area that mandate fire sprinklers in new construction or for major renovations of One Family Dwellings. These systems are installed in accordance to ASTM 13b,

Not being picky but ... you mean NFPA 13D.

That is the standard for installing sprinkler systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings.

and are NEVER TESTED after installation!

True, sort of, they are tested whenever there is a fire in the structure, and they have been proven to save lives. They also reduce property damage, although that is not the reason for their installation.

With well supplied houses, large plastic holding tanks (500 gal. capacity) and booster pumps are used to get the volume and pressure up the the top most spaces in the dwelling. These installations also usually require an emergency generator to power the sprinkler pump during power losses.

I had not thought about houses on wells, guess that is because there are so few around here, but that does create additional considerations for supplying a fire sprinkler system.

Combine that with the longer response time for a house on a well (typically meaning in a more rural area than in an urban area) and that means the sprinkler system has to do the job for a longer period of time before the fire department arrives.

Thank you for bringing that up.

With well supplied houses, large plastic holding tanks (500 gal. capacity) and booster pumps are used to get the volume and pressure up the the top most spaces in the dwelling. These installations also usually require an emergency generator to power the sprinkler pump during power losses. The city supplied water systems do not need the generator of course.

Just curious, How do you protect the holding tank in the winter from turning into a large block of ice? Is it contained in the structure, then what happens if it is near the fire?

Originally Posted by Lee Nettnin

How do you protect the holding tank ... if it is near the fire?

With a sprinkler head?

The efficacy of fire sprinklers in saving lives and property in both residential and commercial applications has been well documented. Residential sprinklers have been out for quite awhile now so we have some information about their faults, problems and costs. Yes, they add a bit to the cost of a home. Yes, they add a little to the maintenance costs if you get them inspected as you should. Once in awhile, you have problems such as leaks but not so much more than any other piping system. As with any new technology, there will be a learning curve. Heck, it's hard to find someone who can properly install windows and doors still.

This new requirement will cause a lot of new adventures with construction, planning, inspecting, etc.

Building codes have been evolving ever since Hammurabi. In colonial times, many chimneys were built away from the house deliberately unstable so if it caught fire, you could push it over to the ground using the pike poles you were required to own. Talk about planned failure. Masonry chimneys have cleanouts for the planned failure of the flue lining. However, if you have a structural fire, a sprinkler system statistically makes a difference in occupants escaping and limiting the damage by a decimal place or two. Fire and building codes evolve slowly and only when sufficient lives have been lost. We now understand fire behavior scientifically and have a tremendous wealth of knowledge on fire resistive construction. It becomes a balance btw what we know we can do, what we should do and what we can afford to do. As Dr. Joe Lstiburek says, it took us 500 yrs. to learn how to build a house that will last 500yrs. and it will take 500 yrs. to pay for it.

Just for my knowledge because I know little of sprinkler systems does the spray heads work independently or all together. Say a fire breaks out in a bedroom would all spray heads go off or just that one room.

We have lighting strikes around here and if lighting strikes a roof it burns from the top down, will there be sprinklers in the attic ?
What temperature does the head go off?

I guess nobody else knows either.

Fire Sprinkler Systems | Sprinkler System | Sprinklers | Fire Sprinklers

Fire sprinkler systems are hooked up to water pipes in your ceiling and walls. The network of water pipes is either filled with water at all times, or hooked up to your water main or a storage tank via a water pump or valve.
The sprinklers themselves are installed on your ceilings or sometimes high on the walls.
Each sprinkler in the fire sprinkler system is fitted with a glass bulb containing gases and liquids that expand under heat, or with a fusible link with seals that melt upon contact with high heat.
When a fire starts, it sends a plume of hot air toward the ceiling. This expands the contents of the glass bulb. When the gases get hot enough, the glass bulb breaks. In the case of the fusible link, the heat melts the seals on the links. This releases a valve connected to the water pipes in the ceiling, dousing the fire with water. The glass bulbs and link seals are often designed to break at a specific temperature-usually around 68°C.
The droplets released by the fire sprinkler system are strictly controlled to be large enough to penetrate the core of the fire without evaporating. They bring the temperature inside the fire down below sustainable levels. As a result, the fire goes out quickly before it has a chance to spread to different areas of the house.
If a sprinkler senses heat, the whole fire sprinkler system will go off-causing expensive water damage. Not true. Most fire sprinkler systems on the market today are designed so that each sprinkler head activates individually. The only sprinkler that goes off in case of a fire is the one directly above the fire-keeping fire and water damage to a minimum.

<H2>Types Of Fire Sprinkler System : Which One Is Right For You?

There are several different types of system on the market, and each is designed for a different situation. These three types are the most common fire sprinkler system types found in homes:
The wet-pipe fire sprinkler system is most commonly recommended for residential buildings. With a wet-pipe fire sprinkler system, water is constantly flowing through the pipes that connect to the sprinkler heads. This allows for the most efficient access to water in case of a fire. However, wet-pipe fire sprinkler systems are not practical in areas of the world where the temperature drops below freezing, especially in buildings that go without heat for any period of time, because the pipes can freeze and burst.
The dry-pipe fire sprinkler system has pipes filled with compressed air, connected to a water main or storage tank with a valve that keeps the water out of the pipes. When a fire activates the sprinkler heads, there is a drop in pressure that causes the water to flow into the pipes and out through the sprinkler heads. Dry-pipe systems tend to be higher-maintenance than wet-pipe systems, but they are recommended in cases where water shouldn't be in the pipes unless there is a fire.
The alternate fire sprinkler system can be filled with water during warm weather, and drained and filled with compressed air for the winter. These systems are useful in climates where there are harsh winters and the building is not constantly heated.
In addition, the sprinkler heads themselves come in several different designs.
Conventional sprinklers will discharge some water on the ceiling. This is not a bad thing, as it makes the ceiling more fire-resistant in case the fire makes it that far up before being extinguished. This type of sprinkler head is suitable for most homes, and will be installed with most residential fire sprinkler systems.
Upright or Pendant Spray sprinklers aim all water straight down. This type of fire sprinkler system is better for rooms with higher ceilings, as the fire is not likely to reach the ceiling before it is put out by the water in the sprinkler.
Sidewall sprinklers attach to a high point on the wall, and are recommended for use when it's not practical to attach sprinklers in the ceiling. They also come in extended-coverage versions that will spray water over a wider area than a fire sprinkler system with conventional sprinkler heads.

</H2>

Again, it looks like the folks in Washington want to see Darwin candidates survive in spite of themselves. Hmmmm ? I say the hell with government and we all should all go back to kerosine lamps, wooden chimneys and outdoor plumbing. Then life would be so much simpler and think how easy home inspections would be?

Thanks Jim for taking the time to post that.........

I wonder what, if any exemtions will be for rural homes? Not that it matters, I don't know of a single county in the area that has ever conducted any kind of code enforcement. When I built my new house I burried four 5,000 gal tanks and bought a fire truck to suck out of the tanks since the fire dept is an hour away at best. Most people either only have a windmill for domestic water or have a tank that a truck makes a delivery for water. I would hate to bother to guess how much money it would take to put a sprinkler in a new farmhouse here but it could easily exceed the value of the land the house is on. My Amish neighbor doesn't even have indoor plumbing (they got 7 kids!)but I suspect he would get some kind of religiouse waiver for it, we may all have to join the church to afford a new house with this kind of red tape! Tom

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Again, it looks like the folks in Washington want to see Darwin candidates survive in spite of themselves.

Originally Posted by thomas burdette

My Amish neighbor doesn't even have indoor plumbing (they got 7 kids!)but I suspect he would get some kind of religiouse waiver for it, we may all have to join the church to afford a new house with this kind of red tape! Tom

WC Jerry,

Seems Thomas has found a way for those Darwin candidates to be successful in their endeavor to do themselves in, and do their families in - join a religious group whose fire protection ways include a horse drawn hand pumper - like you saw in some of the old westerns ... the next step above a bucket brigade.

I take issue with the arguement that sprinklers in houses would "save lives". Those of you who favor residential sprinklers need to consider the fact that most people who die in house fires die from smoke or toxic gas, not burns. See Fire Deaths and Injuries, Facts - NCIPC Also consider how hot would a fire have to get before the sprinkler head is activated? I submit to you that by that time the occupants would have already been overcome by the smoke or toxic gas (ie.carbon monoxide), or, they would have been alerted by smoke detectors and left the area. Sprinklers were originally designed primarily to protect property and to slow the progression of fire in order to allow fire fighting equipment time to arrive at the property before the building was consumed. The code makes other provisions for safe egress of occupants from burning buildings such as fire separation and protected corridors. Are we going to start requiring these in houses too?

Consider the fact that in over half of the documented deaths involving house fires there were no smoke detectors! Smoke detectors are cheap by comparison, yet people are dying every day in this country because they don't have a working smoke detector. So, is the additional cost of sprinklers in houses a good investment? Yes if you represent the insurance industry because it protects their investment---the property.

Consider the impact this will have on rural area houses: What about houses on wells? The cost of the apparatus (ie the tank, pump, etc.) to will make it work will, by extension, make it more expensive to build in the country than in the city. What about log and timberframe houses with cathedral ceilings on well water? Where will you put a tank?

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for making houses safer for the occupants. I just don't agree that sprinklers are a necessary investment for the "safety of the occupants". This is a cost the consumer will bear for the benefit of the insurance industry.


-Tom Maides

Originally Posted by Tom Maides

I take issue with the arguement that sprinklers in houses would "save lives". Those of you who favor residential sprinklers need to consider the fact that most people who die in house fires die from smoke or toxic gas, not burns.

And what causes "smoke or toxic gas"?

Answer: FIRES!

There is plenty of evidence that sprinklers save lives.

To dispute that, or even try to dispute that, makes your last sentence ... well ... flimsy at best.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for making houses safer for the occupants. I just don't agree that sprinklers are a necessary investment for the "safety of the occupants".

PPFA has a new short document explaining the current sprinkler systems, standards and manufacturers.

http://www.ppfahome.org/pdf/PPFA_fir...hure_final.pdf

This will help with some of the questions posted here.

Mike

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

And what causes "smoke or toxic gas"?

Answer: FIRES!

There is plenty of evidence that sprinklers save lives.

To dispute that, or even try to dispute that, makes your last sentence ... well ... flimsy at best.

My point is that the primary purpose of spinklers is to save buildings, saving lives is secondary. Smoke detectors save more lives than any sprinkler system has or will possibly save. Is there evidence that supports that sprinklers actually save lives in single family homes? If so, who is making the report? Show me.

Speaking of smoke Tom what have you been smoking to come up with an opinion like that?

Originally Posted by Tom Maides

My point is that the primary purpose of spinklers is to save buildings, saving lives is secondary

Tom,

You are partially correct, but after that part ... you are all wrong.

Here is the part where you are partially correct:

"My point is that the primary purpose of spinklers is to save buildings," - that is true to the end of your statement, HOWEVER, it is not true without the rest of the statement: My point is that the primary purpose of sprinklers is to save buildings LONG ENOUGH FOR THE PEOPLE TO GET OUT.

Without that part of the statement, you are all wrong.

Sprinklers are not there to save the structure, they are their to save the occupants, and that is done by saving the structure as long as possible, so the occupants can either escape or be rescued.

Plain and simple.

Your half truth speaks volumes of how little you must know. This is a place to learn, so open your mind and absorb some of the knowledge which has been directed your way.

I remember reading somewhere that water damage from sprinklers can be as expensive as fire damage.

Doesn't sound like the insurance companies are getting that far ahead.

Anyone know of any drownings by sprinklers?

Any of you ever suffered a fire loss? Just curious, because if you had, you'd know no amount of protection is enough, and your discussion wouldn't be so academic. It won't matter how much protection you have within the building envelope then. When it comes to fire safety, redundancy is the key. If the primary fails, perhaps the secondary will succeed. If the secondary also fails, you will likely be having Darwin explain his theory to you in person. Why do you think the codes have evolved to require communicating smoke detector installation in all sleeping quarters? At 2:00 AM, when a smoke detector goes off in one section of a house, the code writers recognized that there is a very real danger that others in other parts of the house may not be awakened by the alarm. Or recognize it for what it means. Especially children.

Are sprinkler systems necessary for improved fire safety? I think so. In addition to their fire suppression capabilities, the sprayed water also scrubs the air of some of the smoke particles, cools the burning materials perhaps below the flash point and slows down, if not completely stops, the progression of the fire, increasing the time for the occupants to get out safely. Sprinklers will not take the place of smoke detectors any more than air bags have replaced seat belts. Neither air bags nor seat belts protect the automobile insurers from totaled vehicles. They do increase the likelihood of survival of the event. Like air bag systems, it is better to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them . . . when the alarm goes off. In the middle of the night. When you are so overwhelmed with sleep you can't figure out what the noise is all about.

As to protecting the insurance company from loss, if a house is involved in fire, whether the fire is fought by firemen or by sprinklers, or by nobody at all, there is going to be significant damage from smoke, from water if you are lucky, or from the flames if you are not. If you think you are protecting the insurance company from property damage, you are mistaken. What you are protecting is that precious heart beat in your own chest, in the person sleeping next to you and/or the smaller heart beat(s) down the hall. In the end, that is all that matters.

Been there. Done that.

Gene.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Tom,

You are partially correct, but after that part ... you are all wrong.

Here is the part where you are partially correct:

"My point is that the primary purpose of spinklers is to save buildings," - that is true to the end of your statement, HOWEVER, it is not true without the rest of the statement: My point is that the primary purpose of sprinklers is to save buildings LONG ENOUGH FOR THE PEOPLE TO GET OUT.



Yes, and they accomplish that purpose in large buildings, but in small single family dwellings, please. By the time the sprinklers have gone off, hopefully the smoke detectors have already alerted the occupants because the smoke envolved will be pervasive. Maybe your house is large enough to justify sprinklers, but most people I know don't live in mansions.



Without that part of the statement, you are all wrong.

Sprinklers are not there to save the structure, they are their to save the occupants, and that is done by saving the structure as long as possible, so the occupants can either escape or be rescued.

Plain and simple.

Your half truth speaks volumes of how little you must know. This is a place to learn, so open your mind and absorb some of the knowledge which has been directed your way.

Jerry,

I respect your opinion, but I'm still waiting for proof that sprinklers in single family homes have saved lives. I agree that sprinklers probably add some measure of safety to homes, but so does rated separation walls, fire walls, type X sheet rock, non-combustilble construction, fire alarms etc. If we wanted to, we could make the arguement that houses should not be built out of wood because they might burn. I'm just trying to get you guys to open up your minds and consider the costs of implementing this vs. the actual benefit, not the perceived benefit. I'm not smoking anything, just being the devil's advocate here. I still have not seen the evidence that sprinklers in single family houses have saved lives.

Originally Posted by Tom Maides

Jerry,

I respect your opinion, but I'm still waiting for proof that sprinklers in single family homes have saved lives.

If you were a member of NFPA, you would get their Journal, in which case you would not have any questions as such, they cover it fairly often.

I'm just trying to get you guys to open up your minds and consider the costs of implementing this vs. the actual benefit, not the perceived benefit.

Tom,

Your turn: How much is one single life worth, say ... I don't know ... your wife's/mother's/daughter's life ...

You put "cost" into this discussion above "saving lives", so, now it is up to YOU to put a "cost" on their lives.

Your answer is: ??

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

WC Jerry,

Seems Thomas has found a way for those Darwin candidates to be successful in their endeavor to do themselves in, and do their families in - join a religious group whose fire protection ways include a horse drawn hand pumper - like you saw in some of the old westerns ... the next step above a bucket brigade.

Thats really nice of you Mr. Peck. I am sure you have never lived in a place like we do, almost an our from town, we farm on 14 inches annual rain and have 100 mph windstorms and most house wells are 1000 feet and 2 gpm. Those Amish people would be the first to be at your house if it were burning, they would be the first to bring you food and blankets when you lost everything and I will make a bet they have done more real work in a day than you do in a week. Just because they want to keep their lifestyle you call them Darwins, you want to force them into your narrow little "normal" catagory. These new rules could easily force them from building a new house to living in a junk travel trailor to avoide the expense and you can not tell me that is safer. You want everyone to be safe, forget about being a free American, just stay alive so we can all end up in the rest home with druel running out of our mouth. A lady died over towards town a couple years ago from a dental problem, with your logic I suppose you want to see the government put a soldier with a rifle in everyone's bathroom to make sure they brush their teeth? Don't want to loose another life do you? Think about what your doing to our once proud and free country. Tom

Originally Posted by thomas burdette

Think about what your doing to our once proud and free country. Tom

I am.

Sounds like you are against progress and saving lives, sounds like you want to live in the century before the last one.

Do you even use internal combustion engines?

Thomas,

You are so out of touch with reality that ... well, ... a horse drawn cart might just be too fast for you to handle?

You certainly do not know anything about codes, but I thought you might have figure it out by now (but you have not).

The AHJ (have you ever heard that before? seen it used here before? know what it means?) adopts the code (unless the state adopts the code), and if your AHJ ... never mind ... you are so intent on being as backward as possible that I would not be able to explain it to you.

[quote=Jerry Peck;59861]I am.
You are so out of touch with reality that ... well, ... a horse drawn cart might just be too fast for you to handle?

Awe, you think a horse is all I ever owned Well Mr. Peck, back in '91 I was flying faster things than you could handle yourself but now I want the simple country life, a life you want to destroy. As for internal combustion engines---my 1941 WACO biplane has a nice round one and as far as knowing codes-----how about an Airline Transport Pilot and Holder of an A&P? If you think I am an idiot you just remember that next time you fly some place. I just got to laugh, you are so sure you know everything and have little or no respect for anyone else's lifestyle.

There isn't even a building inspector for this county and even if there was and I was building a new house I would toss enough money at it until the lawyers found away around it. You have a nice day Mr. Peck, I know you are on this mission to save lives but sooner or later even you will understand that there is more to life than just how long you live. Its getting cold, I am going to go put another log on the fire. Tom

Originally Posted by thomas burdette

as far as knowing codes-----how about an Airline Transport Pilot and Holder of an A&P?

There isn't even a building inspector for this county

Then, by now, you should have figured out what I am talking about.

What do you have to do with your FAA license when you have landed on a small island with no government? What 'governs' the way you fly and maintain your airplane? What/who enforces that?

Why did you restore your biplane to the requirements of the FAA and not, instead, 'just do what you wanted to - because it cost less and would save you money' ... wait ... you rebuilt an old biplane ... yet the cost of installing sprinklers in your home would put you under? Your boasts and claims do not add up.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

If you were a member of NFPA, you would get their Journal, in which case you would not have any questions as such, they cover it fairly often.



Tom,

Your turn: How much is one single life worth, say ... I don't know ... your wife's/mother's/daughter's life ...

You put "cost" into this discussion above "saving lives", so, now it is up to YOU to put a "cost" on their lives.

Your answer is: ??

If there is evidence that sprinklers have saved lives in single family homes why is it so hard for you to produce the evidence? Answer: There isn't any evidence which is my point. They either got out after the smoke detector went off, or they died from smoke inhalation.

I'm not questioning "what is a life worth". What I'm questioning is the cost which will make homes less affordable vs. the marginal safety that sprinklers provide for single family dwellings. And, you can't use statisics from NFPA that relate to commercial buildings. A single family dwelling is not a commercial building in terms of familiarity with the building, needs of the occupants, size of the building, travel distance to egress from the building, etc.etc.etc.

Why don't we just outlaw wood? After all, wood burns and fire kills people? We are on the road to making single family homes too expensive for everyone except the wealthy.

Originally Posted by Tom Maides

I'm not questioning "what is a life worth".

Yes you are. You are trying to define it differently, but that is what you are doing.

What I'm questioning is the cost which will make homes less affordable vs. the marginal safety that sprinklers provide for single family dwellings.

There is your "what is a life worth" - "marginal safety that sprinkler provide", apparently, life is worth very little to you.

We are on the road to making single family homes too expensive for everyone except the wealthy.

Not hardly. Not from adding sprinkler systems. That higher cost is largely due to greed: higher land cost (everyone wants a piece of the money) and higher builders profit (they want a larger piece of the money - granted, *right now* that may not apply as they are lowering their prices and giving things away just to sell what was overpriced to start with).

I suspected you would, expected you would, take advantage of the internet you are using to bash fire sprinklers and go the the NFPA site, but, instead, you are simply content to bash fire sprinklers.

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF...Assessment.pdf

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//FP...inklerOPED.doc

NFPA :: Research & Reports :: Fact sheets :: Home fire sprinklers

You don't want any comparisons made to commercial building because you know that fire sprinklers work and save lives there.

The same is true with apartment and condo buildings.

Your fallacy is that your same argument was used back then to try to not get fire sprinklers required in those occupancies at that time.

The simple truth is, that wherever fire sprinklers are installed (required or not, it does not matter), the end result is less damage to the structure ... (before you start chomping at that bit again) ... which means MORE TIME for occupants to either escape or be rescued ... which means more lives saved.

You can keep hiding your head in the sand, but all that does is stick your butt up in the air, and it is not the prettiest pose you present to people when sticking your head into the sand and your butt up into the air - one could say it exposes your worst side (or, maybe not, maybe that is not your worst side? ).

Either way, it displays what a lost cause you are.

I wonder if Tom sleeps soundly in hotels without a fire sprinkler system?
Actually, I don't care..... Fire alarms, fire rated walls and ceiling, fire doors, and fire sprinkler systems save lives! There’s a reason the building codes devote several chapters to fire protection and emergency egress/rescue. Not economically rewarding? Ask any fireman or anyone who has survived a fire in any type building whether the protection that saved their life was worth the cost. Arguing against occupant safety makes one a serious candidate for becoming an honorary membership in the CD Club.*





* Charles Darwin

A residential fire sprinkler system is being installed in the house I am building for my client who requested one. Here are some of the clarifications to hanging questions or statements in this thread
The system required a minimum 1 inch tap to the water main.
The flush ceiling mounted sprinkler heads activate in 2 steps, first it drops down at 135 degrees then it activates and sprays water at 150.
Average cost of a system is roughly 1% of the cost of building the house.
There is a small tax break available as well as a small break in insurance.
The fire department response time is averaged at 5 minutes.
An unchecked fire can get out of control rapidly.
Not sure what the gpm of the fire hose is but the head sprays 20 gpm.
As much as i'd like to think that the regulators are saving lives I believe the money trail goes straight to the property damage claims department.
Short of legislating people to live inside a bathtub of water while indoors, legislating a home sprinkler system doesn't seem that bad.
I can see how attached dwellings should have them as a requirement to prevent the great fire of (attach your densely populated city name here)
I can't see however, the same requirement for a single family dwelling.
Chris Gorton

Originally Posted by Christopher Gorton

Average cost of a system is roughly 1% of the cost of building the house.

Chris,

Being as the cost of a sprinkler is not related to the cost of a home, other than to the square footage size of the home (which somewhat relates to its cost, but only for the basic structure, not any higher end aspects, though - what is the square footage of that home and what was the additional cost for the sprinkler system?

Thanks.

A 2,000 sf $200,000 home will have the same sprinkler system as a 2,000 sf $1.5 mil home will have, the difference being (in part) that the $1.5 mil home is on the lake and the $200k home is in a standard development.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Yes you are. You are trying to define it differently, but that is what you are doing.



There is your "what is a life worth" - "marginal safety that sprinkler provide", apparently, life is worth very little to you.



Not hardly. Not from adding sprinkler systems. That higher cost is largely due to greed: higher land cost (everyone wants a piece of the money) and higher builders profit (they want a larger piece of the money - granted, *right now* that may not apply as they are lowering their prices and giving things away just to sell what was overpriced to start with).

I suspected you would, expected you would, take advantage of the internet you are using to bash fire sprinklers and go the the NFPA site, but, instead, you are simply content to bash fire sprinklers.

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF...Assessment.pdf

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//FP...inklerOPED.doc

NFPA :: Research & Reports :: Fact sheets :: Home fire sprinklers

You don't want any comparisons made to commercial building because you know that fire sprinklers work and save lives there.

The same is true with apartment and condo buildings.

Your fallacy is that your same argument was used back then to try to not get fire sprinklers required in those occupancies at that time.

The simple truth is, that wherever fire sprinklers are installed (required or not, it does not matter), the end result is less damage to the structure ... (before you start chomping at that bit again) ... which means MORE TIME for occupants to either escape or be rescued ... which means more lives saved.

You can keep hiding your head in the sand, but all that does is stick your butt up in the air, and it is not the prettiest pose you present to people when sticking your head into the sand and your butt up into the air - one could say it exposes your worst side (or, maybe not, maybe that is not your worst side? ).

Either way, it displays what a lost cause you are.

Jerry,

Chill dude! Personal attacks are unwarranted and unnecessary. This is obviously not a civil forum and there is more than an education agenda going on here.

Yes, although much of the standard cost of building a home is in the shell, notwithstanding the chandeliers in the powder room, and Italian marble, seismic or high wind codes, and the lot and its location are your own lookout.
1% of the cost of building the house comes as a general guideline from the fire sprinkler company.
10,000 sq ft and $18 k for the system here, his one percent rule is close to actual house cost figures.
Just by square footage then a 2000 sq ft home would be $3500.
Money well spent? Even if you were required to? An annual tax credit might help.

Originally Posted by Christopher Gorton

1% of the cost of building the house comes as a general guideline from the fire sprinkler company.

Chris,

That's were what I was referring to completely wipes out the sprinkler guy's 1% ...

10,000 sq ft and $18 k for the system here, his one percent rule is close to actual house cost figures.

If $18 k represents 1%, then the price of the house would be $1.8 mil.

$1.8 mil for a 10,000 sf house is dirt cheap from where I've been.

A 10,000 sf house would be more like $18 mil, which would make it 0.1% instead of 1%.

However, the same $18 k cost would be there, thus, thinking of it as $1.80 per sf puts the cost relationship into comparison with the area covered, not the cost of the house. That's what I was referring to. It adds $1.80 per sf to the price of the house. A 2,000 sf house would then be expected to add around $3,600 to the price.

I added a whole house generator to the house we had down in South Florida, doing everything I could myself (had to have a gas company install the tanks and run the gas line) cost me $6,500, would normally have cost around $10,000. That house sold for $350 k 2-1/2 years ago, so my cost was nearly 2% of the price, normal cost would have been around 3% of the price. Only got to use it once (only had to use it once) and when I did get to/have to use it, it ran for 4 days, powering my house and having cords going out to 4 neighbors before power came back on after Hurricane Wilma.

WORTH EVERY PENNY OF ITS COST TOO!

I truly suspect that a fire sprinkler, once needed and 'get to use it', is also *worth every penny of it*.

Sometimes you just cannot put a price on something, as much as some might try to ... and that generator *did not save one single life* ... nope ... just 'made life a lot easier for those 4 days'.

'Just made life a lot easier for those 4 days' versus a sprinkler 'saving lives'? Yeah, well worth every penny they might cost.

Originally Posted by Tom Maides

This is obviously not a civil forum and there is more than an education agenda going on here.

Tom,

Dude, this is basically a civil forum, and education is what is going on here ... some just refuse to open their minds and learn, and sometimes the only way to try to get through is to take the proverbial *2x4 upside the head* and get their attention ... and sometimes that does not even work.

(sigh) That proverbial *2x4 upside the head* did not work here, this time.

Not much else can be added for your sake. Darwin awaits you.

I spent 20+ years as a fire protection design engineer in a large corporation of more than 150,000 people in more than 500 locations world wide and worked closley with Factory Mutual, NFPA and Corporate Risk Managment.

Don't be fooled about sprinklers as life safety devices (except in high rise buildings). Sprinklers were created by insurance companies (Factory Mutual) as a means to reduce investment loss, insurance risk, and insurance premiums. Sprinklers are about saving money not about life safety. Early warning detection devices (ie: smoke and heat detectors) are much more effective in saving lives. Sprinklers don't go off until there is a fire. They protect against total loss.

I read the links from what you posted and "I CHALLENGE YOU" to show me any authoritative information that concludes how sprinklers in a single family home will save lifes.

Michael Larson has a point that should not be ignored -- AT WHAT PRICE.
And I don't believe the answer is AT ANY PRICE (although that is what we are heading toward)

In all due respect Ken do you really think its fair to ask other who don't agree with an opinion you've broached to prove by statistical and/or analogical evidence their belief when you don't do the same? Hey, I don't always agree with everybody here including EC Jerry, but I respect his anecdotal evidence that he naver fails to present.

Originally Posted by Ken Amelin

I spent 20+ years as a fire protection design engineer in a large corporation of more than 150,000 people in more than 500 locations world wide and worked closely with Factory Mutual, NFPA and Corporate Risk Management.

Don't be fooled about sprinklers as life safety devices (except in high rise buildings). Sprinklers were created by insurance companies (Factory Mutual) as a means to reduce investment loss, insurance risk, and insurance premiums. Sprinklers are about saving money not about life safety. Early warning detection devices (ie: smoke and heat detectors) are much more effective in saving lives. Sprinklers don't go off until there is a fire. They protect against total loss.

I read the links from what you posted and "I CHALLENGE YOU" to show me any authoritative information that concludes how sprinklers in a single family home will save lives.

Michael Larson has a point that should not be ignored -- AT WHAT PRICE.
And I don't believe the answer is AT ANY PRICE (although that is what we are heading toward)

I agree with everything you just said to the T. I have been in commercial and residential construction all my working life. 20 years alone in Mass, South Shore. I have seen home and commercial structures destroyed by sprinklers dollar wise. I have seen the same in homes. I have never in all my working life seen a life saved in residential from sprinklers. I am sure there must have been I just have not seen it. I do however believe in sprinklers in a home for a time safety issue with those that can not easily get out of a home and I also believe in them 100% in apartments and condos and commercial structures.

You are certainly correct that they are for keeping a total destruction scenario from happening. On that note I have completely rehabbed homes that were fire/sprinkler gutted where I could have built a new home for less.

Sprinklers in all homes! Probably a pretty good idea. Will they save a life or two. I am sure. Properly working smoke/heat/carbon monoxide detectors can, will and do save more lives than I think anyone will ever know. No smoke detectors in a home, the occupants (or landlords) should be shot.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Then, by now, you should have figured out what I am talking about.

What do you have to do with your FAA license when you have landed on a small island with no government? What 'governs' the way you fly and maintain your airplane? What/who enforces that?

Why did you restore your biplane to the requirements of the FAA and not, instead, 'just do what you wanted to - because it cost less and would save you money' ... wait ... you rebuilt an old biplane ... yet the cost of installing sprinklers in your home would put you under? Your boasts and claims do not add up.

Ha Ha, now your going into water you don't understand at all, FAR is pretty muddy so I will leave you be. Now as far as what an A&P holder can do and who enforces it, well, I sign off my own annual anyway..... But, the world of civil aviation is going the opposite direction you are, not so many decades ago you couldn't even build your own aircraft. Now with the new Sport class training has been cut in half and you can do so many more things without the red tape. Did you know in the sport class they have done away with even having a medical? Yip, its true and their J3 Cubs are big business for me! This is what all gov should be striving for, les regulation on all!

As for what I do and did not adding up, I still hold the lic but flying is now restricted to certian baron lands due to a medical condition. I just fly for pleasure and testing. I work on Ag and private prop planes now. I never said the cost of a sprinkler would put me under, I said it would greatly trouble my neighbor and the average 2gpm well would be worthless-read what I wrote. I got over $50,000 in my fire equipment, burried tanks and such. If it were not code I might even put a sprinker system in myself but as an American you must have your own values. I will stand up against regulatory intrusion even if it forces me into bankruptys, its called being free

You were talking about the value of human life, well, go see what your state's limit on wrongful death lawsuites are, that will tell you EXACTLY what a human life is worth. In my state it is $50,000 capped. You may argue that but just try your luck in court with it! So that means neither your nor my life is worth nearly as much as my old Waco here but then it should be more because it was made in a better America, one before the Socialistic control freaks ruined it. Tom

Originally Posted by thomas burdette

Ha Ha, now your going into water you don't understand at all, FAR is pretty muddy so I will leave you be.

You still have no idea where I was heading with that. So be it.

You were talking about the value of human life, well, go see what your state's limit on wrongful death lawsuites are, that will tell you EXACTLY what a human life is worth. In my state it is $50,000 capped.

Okay, we are getting somewhere, not what you place a value on human life, but what your state does - $50,000, right?

So, the maximum life in$urance policy which is allowed to be sold and purchased in your state is $50,000? Huh? You say no? Then what is the maximum life in$urance policy which is allowed to be sold and purchased in your state? THAT is the maximum value your state places on a human life. Take that to court and you could probably overturn the $50,000 cap, the state allowing you to spend money for a policy of more-than-$50,000, yet all you are allowed to collect is $50,000 - open your mind and think about how the two aspects inter-relate to each other, maybe you will get that?

However, back to your stated $50,000 cap for the value of human life in your state ...

Let's see, a "typical family" (you would need to review your state's census records to verify or change this) of "4" (two adults and 1.7 children) would mean that the values of lives in that household would be capped at $200,000 ($50k x 4 = $200k).

A "typical" dwelling unit (you would need to check with your state's census records, or maybe the building department records, or possibly the real estate records) is 2,200 sf (pulling a number out of thin air here as I have nothing to obtain it from, but you are welcome to track it down and make the corresponding mathematical adjustments to the following calculation). A 2,200 sf dwelling, based on the stated NFPA research fire sprinkler system costs would be between $0.38 and $3.66 per sprinklered sf.

Those are not 'just some old numbers', those are from a report which was finalized last month.

2200 x 0.38 = $836 (for city supplied water and which includes sprinklers in the attic and the garage in addition to the living space)

2200 x 3.66 = $8,052 (for a hose on a well, sprinkler system protected with anti-freeze, and all related equipment)

Thus, a 2,200 sf house out on a farm, yeah, the cost goes up, but so does the fire department response time, which means that the sprinkler system is going to be the first and main fire fighting source.

While the cost is lower for a typical in-town dwelling on city supplied water, with a shorter response time for the fire department.

But let's break that down even further: TIME

That that 2,200 sf farm house, install that $8,000 fire sprinkler system, and, 70 years later (FEMA life of a house), that fire protection sprinkler system has cost $114 per year, plus whatever maintenance may be required.

It is not worth $114 per year to help protect your family's lives from fire?

Shame on you!

Especially when the state's stated value is $200,000!

Isn't Tom Burdette the guy who leaves the light on for you at Motel 8 ?

Originally Posted by Jerry McCarthy

Isn't Tom Burdette the guy who leaves the light on for you at Motel 8 ?

Yes.

Could be the same one?

If so, maybe it's time to 'change the light bulb' so he can 'see the light' he leaves on. Bulbs do burn out.

"We'll leave the light on for ya."

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Tom,

Dude, this is basically a civil forum, and education is what is going on here ... some just refuse to open their minds and learn, and sometimes the only way to try to get through is to take the proverbial *2x4 upside the head* and get their attention ... and sometimes that does not even work.

(sigh) That proverbial *2x4 upside the head* did not work here, this time.

Not much else can be added for your sake. Darwin awaits you.

It's true you have no open mind and the only way is your way. Your opinion is the only one that matters, so, if there are any disenting views......hit them with a 2x4.

Not much else can be added for your sake. Stalin awaits you.

Originally Posted by Tom Maides

It's true you have no open mind and the only way is your way. Your opinion is the only one that matters, so, if there are any disenting views......hit them with a 2x4.

Tom,

Not "my way", it is the "safe way", the way that many think, know, support, back up, however you want to say it. *I* am simply trying to get your attention so you can *open your mind* and think about it.

After that, as I said before: "Not much else can be added for your sake. Darwin awaits you."

The C. Darwin Candidates are lining up over there, next to that building which is on fire, and in which there are no fire sprinklers, nonetheless, though, those in line like that 'warm fuzzy feeling' on a cold night, so they wait their turn ... no need to call the fire department, the fire department would only get yelled at for putting out the nice warm fire. I see a place opening up in that line for you ... don't even have to go to the end of the line ...

Because you shut down intelligent debate, I hesitate to waste my time responding. Obviously, the cost/benefit ratios work in favor of installing sprinklers, but lets get it right--the purpose of sprinklers is to save property, saving lives in a small house is not what they were invented to do. Maybe in larger houses they make more sense.


As for your Darwin comment:

How childish! Not much else can be added from my point of view because you stifle anyone with an opposing view.

Good day comrade! Stalin awaits you.

Originally Posted by Tom Maides

but lets get it right--the purpose of sprinklers is to save property, saving lives in a small house is not what they were invented to do.

To separate your double comment into the separate aspects:

1) "saving lives in a small house is not what they were invented to do"

Correct in that they "were invented to" save property, such as large factories.

2) but lets get it right--the purpose of sprinklers is to save property

Incorrect as *the purpose of sprinklers* is to save lives.

See, progress happens, 'they were invented' for one purpose (to save factories), however, 'they are used for a different purpose' (to save lives).

Being as we are talking about "today" and not back in 1874 and until the 1940s/1950s, *the purpose* is to *save lives*.

http://www.scottprogers.com/files_co...afactsheet.pdf

Fire Sprinkler System

Scott Campbell Company - Fire Sprinkler Contractor - About Fire Sprinklers

Fire Sprinkler History - APi Fire Protection Group

I[quote=Jerry Peck;59986]

As of two years ago the state's $50,000 cap had never been overturned, I have no idea what has happened sinse, a drunk driver in a company truck killed a friend's wife and two kids and they slugged it out in court. Ins is not a a very good base, go insure a brick for $300 and mail it, if it gets broke see if the Postal service makes good, they won't, believe me.

I liked your prices on the farm house job You are WAY out there on that. A well system here, and I have had one installed recently, cost over $20,000 just for domestic use(that is why most people truck water in). I have burried large tanks for my fire reserve and believe me, it took weeks to fill them from the well.

As for the motel 8 thing, I have not spent the night away from here in 5 years because there is not an ins. company that will cover me here. That is why I got the fire truck and all that mess, when you have several hundred thousand dollars worth of other peoples planes in your hangers you don't ever leave the place unmanned.

I am starting to wonder why I am even talking to you about this, it is obvouse you are one of them "the gov knows best" and no citizen is capable of taking care of himself kind of guys. I heard some nut case on the radio wanting to implant some kind of mircrochip in everyone so the gov could keep tabs on them, I instantly thought of you I am not going to waste anymore time with this, you are not worth it. I am sure your going to jump up and down like a 2nd grader and say "see, I was right, he can't argue with me" so go ahead and make a fool out of yourself. I know your not tough enough to live out here and that is good enough for me.

Tom

Jerry M
It was Tom Beaudette in Motel 6 commercial.

Originally Posted by thomas burdette

I liked your prices on the farm house job You are WAY out there on that. A well system here, and I have had one installed recently, cost over $20,000 just for domestic use(that is why most people truck water in).

As I suspected, you did not bother to read the information in the links I provided above.

Those prices are from the NFPA study, they are not "my prices". The sprinkler costs cover the fire sprinkler associated costs, not the well for domestic water, which would need to be covered anyway - unless you truck water in, by truck or by horse drawn wagon (you did say Amish people). Nonetheless, it shows you did not bother to read the information on home fire sprinklers, which means you are not open to new information. Talk about being childish - you are arguing and not willing to think about what is being discussed, your mind is made up. So be it.

By the way, here is that link from my post above regarding Home Fire Sprinkler Cost Assessment, done by the research foundation of the NFPA.

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF...Assessment.pdf