Richard is absolutely correct and since we have had these sprinkler mitigation
systems mandated in our little town over the last at least eight years there
should be some sort of analytics attached to that. For example my system in the
house that burned to the ground cost me approximately $10,000 and that was
seven or so years ago. I would imagine that with inflation and depending on the
size of home, mine was relatively small around 1600 ft.² that cost would only
go up, multiplied by how many single family homes have been constructed, we
have a approximate total cost… And how many lives and structures have been
saved due to the installation of such systems. So we would have a value. If the
cost to value analytics do not add up why does this continue to be mandated?
I am all for everyone putting these systems in their own homes if they would
like and it should be a choice..
I can also personally tell you at least with my insurance policy the system
installed had no value to Allstate I wasn’t given any discounts because of the
fire mitigation system installed they would give me a small discount for having
a hail resistant roof.
If The only reference point for the town staff or Fire Marshall is going to be
a website or association who’s funding is unknown as is the neutrality of the
alleged research would be incomprehensible to me.
Thank you, Mike
On Apr 22, 2022, at 9:46 AM, rjshimizu <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It’s important on any research to know who’s funding and promoting the
results – I think Mike’s point. While being funded by the industry doesn’t
necessarily mean the research is false, it reduces the research’s
credibility. The site belongs to the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA). The research “facts” posted are hugely positive to sprinklers with no
counter arguments that you’d expect from a neutral source. It certainly
looks like a source for promoting and selling sprinkler systems and
regulations requiring these systems.
I did one level of digging into who they are. Being a “.Org” only means
they’re a non-profit but doesn’t mean they’re non-biased. Their listed board
of directors includes FEMA – so some of the funding may be from grants from
FEMA, but doesn’t necessarily mean it’s neutral. There are several Fire
protection organizations which are probably more neutral but also probably
not significant funding sources. A couple of insurance companies (including
a Marshall Fire favorite State Farm) which definitely would like consumers to
pay for systems that would reduce their claims – so certainly a bias towards
the sprinkler industry.
Following the money provides some insight. The organizations that have money
to spend on this type of thing would be:
The insurance companies
FEMA grants may be another source of funding, but difficult to say whether
they would moderate any research bias since politics is a large factor for
them
There are four .Orgs that appear to be sprinkler industry members
(manufacturers, installers) on the board. Without specifically seeing the
financing of the organization, I can only assume that they are large
financers of the research conducted and deciders on what gets published. The
fact that these board members are also non-profits appears to be another
layer of insulation from the actually industry businesses supporting this
stuff.
I’m not an investigative reporter, but it seems like they would attempt to
get more definite facts about this like:
What’s the real flow of money into NFPA?
What research that they funded did they choose not to publish?
Where do the NFPA employees come from?
Who’s supporting the next layer down on the non-profit orgs
Dealing with all the stuff we have to do with our losses along with doing my
day job means I can’t invest more time into investigating this stuff. My
conclusion from looking at this is that the research they use is questionable
and biased and shouldn’t be used to force all the people struggling with
rebuilding to spend a lot of money to install them.
Richard
From: originaltown-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <originaltown-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Mike Sisk
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 7:26 PM
To: originaltown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OriginalTown] Re: food for thought on auto-sprinkler requirement
I am curious as to where the funding comes from for homesprinkler.org ? Is it
an association group funded by those that install fire sprinklers?
On Apr 21, 2022, at 6:16 PM, Ross Morgan <ross@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
More food for thought.
Here is the website that the Town’s Chief Building Official, Tim Moroney,
will base his presentation on at Monday night's meeting.
https://homefiresprinkler.org/
From: originaltown-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <originaltown-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Daryl McCool
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 3:12 PM
To: Town Board <townboard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: originaltown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OriginalTown] food for thought on auto-sprinkler requirement
New York City has a high density of tall buildings and a population density
that is also very high. For this reason, it should come as no surprise that
the fire protection requirements in NYC are among the most demanding in the
world, yet NYC code makes automatic sprinkler systems optional in:
Detached one-family dwellings.
Detached two-family dwellings.
Townhouses, also known as multiple single-family dwellings.
https://www.ny-engineers.com/blog/residential-sprinkler-systems-in-new-york-city
