The ongoing debate over fire sprinklers
People, particularly in this area, have a strong aversion to government mandates. And with good reason — many times they ended up costing us more than the benefits they provide.
But sometimes, we don’t mind so much when the government steps into our lives, especially if it involves protecting our lives and those of our loved ones.
On Friday, the Plato Fire Department and St. Paul Fire Inspector Jamie Novak provided us with the opportunity to see firsthand how residential sprinkling systems can save lives and minimize damage to property in the case of fire.
The past several years, fire officals in the state have been pushing legislators to enact a law that requires the installation of fire sprinklers in new homes.
Friday afternoon’s demonstration showed us that, indeed, fire sprinklers can save lives of both residents and firefighters, and help protect property from major damage.
The fire department and Novak started a cigarette fire on beds in two rooms, one that contained a sprinkler head, and one that did not. The difference in the amount of damage between the two rooms was startling. In the sprinkled room, damaged was pretty much contained to one corner of a mattress, plus some smoke and water damage. The other room, in a span of just six minutes, was virtually destroyed.
As Novak pointed out, the repairs in the first instance would be far cheaper than repairs required in the second.
Novak also cited a real-life event in making his case for requiring sprinklers in homes. In St. Paul, a man confined to a wheelchair and using an oxygen tank was spared — unhurt — when a sprinkler extinguished an accidental fire in his apartment. The fire was out well before firefighters arrived at the scene.
Of course, there are arguments against requiring sprinklers. First, it isn’t cheap to sprinkle a home. It adds to the building cost. And most people live through their lives without ever having a fire occur in their own home or those they visit.
Second, there is the issue of personal choice. Many will argue that people should have the right to risk their own lives and property if that is their desire.
For most part, we tend to argue on the side of personal freedom as opposed to governmental intervention.
But in this situation, it is not only the homeowner and his or her family that are put at risk. Also at risk are potential rescuers, including law enforcment, fire personnel, neighbors and passersby.
As Novak pointed out Friday, our homes are not like our grandparents’ homes. The recent trend in lightweight construction can cause floors to collapse earlier in a fire event than in previous generations, putting firefighters at risk.
And the stuff we fill our homes with isn’t like that of our grandparents’ generation, either. Today’s furniture and electronics have a lot of polyurethane, synthetic material and tons of plastic. Most of that is created from petroleum-based products. As we all know, petroleum is a fuel.
A home’s contents burn faster and hotter than in past generations, and create far more toxic fumes — again, risk factors for potential rescuers.
So, we would like legislators to consider residential sprinkling requirements for new homes.
And while we’d hate to see added expense make housing more costly for home owners, we also want everyone to be safe. In the long run, that’s what really matters.
