 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7339 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30th, 2008 08:01 pm |
|
So a human life is worth $3000 but not $12,000?
|
wograr
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | Boston, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 01:11 am |
|
brudgers wrote: So a human life is worth $3000 but not $12,000?
No...I already said it's priceless. Sprinklers are more cost effective and elevators are unsafe to use during fires.
Perhaps we should remove all of the things from homes that make them more safe....like back flow preventers, went traps, tempered glass door in showers, and gfci outlets. Vapor barriers should be a personal choice....if you want a house full of mold then it should be your perogative.....and who needs level, uniform treads and risers?
Last edited on Wed Oct 1st, 2008 01:19 am by wograr
|
Unsportsmanlike Conduct
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | A-R-C-H-I-T-E-C-T, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 577 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 03:27 am |
|
Hmmm... sprinklers in the kitchen where a grease fire is likely to occur.... wouldn't that just spread the fire around and make it worse? Sprinklers don't account for all types of fires.
I also don't like the idea of getting everything wet for a small fire that could be easily put out with a fire extinguisher.
Maybe it was the ICC that got this passed, but IMO the sprinkler's union or whoever are the real beneficiaries....
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7339 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 02:54 pm |
|
| Sponsored by Servpro.
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7339 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 02:57 pm |
|
wograr wrote: brudgers wrote: So a human life is worth $3000 but not $12,000?
No...I already said it's priceless. Sprinklers are more cost effective and elevators are unsafe to use during fires.
Perhaps we should remove all of the things from homes that make them more safe....like back flow preventers, went traps, tempered glass door in showers, and gfci outlets. Vapor barriers should be a personal choice....if you want a house full of mold then it should be your perogative.....and who needs level, uniform treads and risers?
Uniform treads and risers cost nothing and reduce falls and therefore are of much greater benefit than sprinklers.
Backflow preventers protect public health.
Wet traps cost about $5.
GFCI a couple of bucks an oulet...at most.
Vapor Barriers of course are not required by code. Infiltration barriers are. Pity to the client of an architect who doesn't know the difference.
|
Nomadica
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 27th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 325 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 03:37 pm |
|
Vapor Barriers of course are not required by code. Infiltration barriers are. Pity to the client of an architect who doesn't know the difference.
Vapor barriers are required by IBC 2003. That section was deleted in IBC 2006, but now it references IECC regarding condensation barriers in exterior walls and in attics - so essentially vapor barriers are still required by code. But many local codes modify these sections of IBC. With the upsurge in strawbale construction, blown cellulose insulation, etc. there are a lot of problems with this type of blanket mandate for vapor barriers. All the many green building rating systems have further complicated this issue as they tend to require high perm ratings, in conflict with most types of vapor barriers...Last edited on Wed Oct 1st, 2008 05:14 pm by Nomadica
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7339 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 04:16 pm |
|
| Just another example of why the ICC sucks.
|
jmcarr
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Architect, NCARB, Charlotte, North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 704 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | See architect run. See architect run with x-acto blade. Ouchy! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 06:39 pm |
|
Did anyone mention the added strain on drought-prone domestic water supplies? In the southeast, many municipalities are still under restricted water use measures. Of course domestic sprinklers could save lives. But requiring sprinklers in all residences, regardless of urban density, simply seems drastic and ill-conceived.
What Would Thoreau Do? 
|
shinto909
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Chicago |
| Posts: | 433 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 07:14 pm |
|
jmcarr wrote: Did anyone mention the added strain on drought-prone domestic water supplies? In the southeast, many municipalities are still under restricted water use measures. Of course domestic sprinklers could save lives. But requiring sprinklers in all residences, regardless of urban density, simply seems drastic and ill-conceived.
What Would Thoreau Do?
ok i have to answer this- did anyone think of this before they depeted the ogallala aquifer to grow citrus in the desert or depleted the CO river to put fountains in vegas? of course not.
if you use sprinklers to put out a fire then dont water your lawn that day. i think life safety is a bit more important
Last edited on Wed Oct 1st, 2008 07:16 pm by shinto909
|
jmcarr
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Architect, NCARB, Charlotte, North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 704 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | See architect run. See architect run with x-acto blade. Ouchy! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 07:34 pm |
|
shinto909 wrote: jmcarr wrote: Did anyone mention the added strain on drought-prone domestic water supplies? In the southeast, many municipalities are still under restricted water use measures. Of course domestic sprinklers could save lives. But requiring sprinklers in all residences, regardless of urban density, simply seems drastic and ill-conceived.
What Would Thoreau Do?
ok i have to answer this- did anyone think of this before they depeted the ogallala aquifer to grow citrus in the desert or depleted the CO river to put fountains in vegas? of course not.
if you use sprinklers to put out a fire then dont water your lawn that day. i think life safety is a bit more important
You're referring to the southwest, not the southeast. Besides, there is always some idiot who thinks it's more important to water the lawn, and decides to tamper with the sprinkler system to achieve that goal.
I can see the requirement for new dormitories and group homes (of a certain density) to be sprinklered, depending on type of construction and number of stories. But, all new houses? Even Thoreau's little cabin?
|
shinto909
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Chicago |
| Posts: | 433 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 07:36 pm |
|
| well the cabin would need what- 1 head? you could hook it up to the toilet
|
jmcarr
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Architect, NCARB, Charlotte, North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 704 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | See architect run. See architect run with x-acto blade. Ouchy! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 07:56 pm |
|
shinto909 wrote: well the cabin would need what- 1 head? you could hook it up to the toilet
haha! the inspector would have a field day. first off, Thoreau needs two back-flow preventers, one for domestic, one for sprinkler. Then, water pressure needs to be sufficient, and, given the cabin's remote location, Thoreau probably needs a water pressure booster pump. Also, I think separate taps are required, one for sprinkler, one for domestic, which translates into more city fees. That's alot for one sprinkler head in cabin down by a pond!
|
wograr
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | Boston, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 08:36 pm |
|
brudgers wrote: wograr wrote: brudgers wrote: So a human life is worth $3000 but not $12,000?
No...I already said it's priceless. Sprinklers are more cost effective and elevators are unsafe to use during fires.
Perhaps we should remove all of the things from homes that make them more safe....like back flow preventers, went traps, tempered glass door in showers, and gfci outlets. Vapor barriers should be a personal choice....if you want a house full of mold then it should be your perogative.....and who needs level, uniform treads and risers?
Uniform treads and risers cost nothing and reduce falls and therefore are of much greater benefit than sprinklers.
It is not about money
Backflow preventers protect public health.
Preventing a house from burning....so the neighbors house doesn't burn, and so on, isnt protecting public health?
Wet traps cost about $5.
It is not about money
GFCI a couple of bucks an oulet...at most.
It is not about money
Vapor Barriers of course are not required by code. Infiltration barriers are. Pity to the client of an architect who doesn't know the difference.
I know the difference. I also know that a properly installed air/vapor barrier will reduce the risk of mold
So to summarize, as long as it doesn't cost too much should do all we can to try and save human lives.
Actually, now that I think of it air bags are really expensive and anti0lock break cost way more than drum breaks. We could probably reduce the average cost of a car by several thousand dollars if just make it a little less safe.
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7339 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 11:05 pm |
|
There's a point of diminishing returns.
In 2007 according to the US census there were about 128,000,000 housing units in the US.
According to NFPA there were 2865 fatal home fires.
Both figures include multi-family and mobile homes as well as single family.
So there was one fatality per 44,667 housing units.
At $3000 per system that's one fatality per $134,031,416.60 spent.
Of course the 8,000,000 US moblile homes won't be affected by the sprinkler requirement...but those 179 people live in trailers anyway.
|
FinitoCompleto
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 214 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 02:41 am |
|
There are over 15,000 burn and fire injuries from residential fires every year - not including injuries to firefighters.
The medical treatment of those injuries costs over $7.5 billion per year. (from The Incidence and Economic Burden of Injuries in the United States, Finkelstein, 2006)
The majority of surviving hospitalized burn victims are between 25 and 45 years old, so there is also a continuing impact in costs of long term care and equipment, lost wages whether temporary or longer term, etc.
Your math also seems to be assuming that every existing home in the US would be sprinklered in the same year, but the proposed code change applies only to new homes - so should only assess the cost to sprinkler the number of new homes built in one year...Last edited on Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 02:10 pm by FinitoCompleto
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7339 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 04:37 pm |
|
FinitoCompleto wrote: There are over 15,000 burn and fire injuries from residential fires every year - not including injuries to firefighters.
The medical treatment of those injuries costs over $7.5 billion per year. (from The Incidence and Economic Burden of Injuries in the United States, Finkelstein, 2006)
The majority of surviving hospitalized burn victims are between 25 and 45 years old, so there is also a continuing impact in costs of long term care and equipment, lost wages whether temporary or longer term, etc.
Your math also seems to be assuming that every existing home in the US would be sprinklered in the same year, but the proposed code change applies only to new homes - so should only assess the cost to sprinkler the number of new homes built in one year...
Looking at census figures for the last 40 years, there's about 1,000,000 new homes a year: 1,000,000 x $3000 = $3billion (for all homes: 127,000,000 x $3000 would be $380,000,000,000).
The impact of sprinklering new homes would have a negligible effect on burn injuries since that $3billion would only go into 0.79% of homes (figure 28 lives per year based on 2007 NFPA numbers).
Falls are a far greater hazard than fires and far more costly.
|
jmcarr
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Architect, NCARB, Charlotte, North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 704 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | See architect run. See architect run with x-acto blade. Ouchy! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 05:04 pm |
|
$3000 seems too low for sprinklering a single-family home. Does this estimate include tap fees, back-flow (RPZ) preventers, design and certification fees? Plus, isn't periodic maintenance / testing required for sprinklers?
I think $3/SF is more realistic. A 2000 SF home would cost $6000 to sprinkler. I am not sure the average single-family homeowner would be willing to sprinkler their new home. What about concentrating on enforcing residential codes that already exist, like fire/smoke alarms and portable fire extinguishers?
Last edited on Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 05:11 pm by jmcarr
|
FinitoCompleto
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 214 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 05:06 pm |
|
Yes, falls are costly - about $55 billion annually in the US - and they're the leading cause of accidental injury in people over 25 (not just the elderly). Measures should be taken to prevent them.
I don't think the elevator-in-every-house math will come out any better than the sprinklers-in-every-house math though (especially since there's a small but costly and gruesome incidence of injuries related to elevators and lifts).
I think your sprinkler math is misleading/incomplete.
Homes built since 1900 only have an average lifespan of about 45 years (i.e. they're not building 'em like they used to) - so while the impact on total fire injuries would indeed be negligible in Year 1 of this code change, over a 45 year period we could expect to see the majority of existing homes replaced with new, and each year the cost of sprinklers would be offset by a greater savings in injuries...Last edited on Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 05:10 pm by FinitoCompleto
|
FinitoCompleto
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 214 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 05:09 pm |
|
| It doesn't cost $6/sf to sprinkler a house. It's closer to $1.50 per foot. No, that doesn't include maintenance, yes it includes all other initial project costs.
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7339 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 06:05 pm |
|
FinitoCompleto wrote: Yes, falls are costly - about $55 billion annually in the US - and they're the leading cause of accidental injury in people over 25 (not just the elderly). Measures should be taken to prevent them.
I don't think the elevator-in-every-house math will come out any better than the sprinklers-in-every-house math though (especially since there's a small but costly and gruesome incidence of injuries related to elevators and lifts).
I think your sprinkler math is misleading/incomplete.
Homes built since 1900 only have an average lifespan of about 45 years (i.e. they're not building 'em like they used to) - so while the impact on total fire injuries would indeed be negligible in Year 1 of this code change, over a 45 year period we could expect to see the majority of existing homes replaced with new, and each year the cost of sprinklers would be offset by a greater savings in injuries...
I've been ballparking the numbers.
If you want to run a more accurate set you can use the National Housing Survey.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html
In 2005 the median age of housing units was 32 years (if it wasn't at least 30 you wouldn't be able to get a 360 month mortgage).
About 1/3 was more than 45 years old...that's 41,000,000 homes.
|
BetterMousetrap
Member
| Joined: | Tue Mar 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 06:47 pm |
|
It seems to me that the third of houses that are more than 45 years old is probably made up of a lot of very old >100 year old houses, and a steadily dwindling supply of 45-100 year old houses.
I always heard that same thing - that houses built in the 20th century were only built to last +/-40 years.
In my experience whether towns and cities have adopted sprinkler ordinances seems to be reactionary, based on local tragedies. If a family dies then a few months later there's a law that new houses need sprinklers. It's similar to the way that sex offender laws pop up right after a highly publicized incident.
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7339 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 06:53 pm |
|
9,000,000 before 1919.
About 7.5% of the total housing stock and about 15% of the of homes over 30 years old.
|
golfernut78
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Euless, Texas |
| Posts: | 218 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | licensed architect - texas |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 06:55 pm |
|
jmcarr wrote: $3000 seems too low for sprinklering a single-family home. Does this estimate include tap fees, back-flow (RPZ) preventers, design and certification fees? Plus, isn't periodic maintenance / testing required for sprinklers?
I think $3/SF is more realistic. A 2000 SF home would cost $6000 to sprinkler. I am not sure the average single-family homeowner would be willing to sprinkler their new home. What about concentrating on enforcing residential codes that already exist, like fire/smoke alarms and portable fire extinguishers?
i agree.
if oklahoma (and any other state in tornado alley) isn't willing to mandate hurricanne straps on roof structures (about a $300-$400 increase per house) then how can you expect them to adopt this.
i still see some benefit for this in townhomes, or zero lot line developments to help containing the fire from spreading, but i still don't see this as a big life saver, especially with so many fire related deaths occuring at night while people are sleeping from smoke.
|
wograr
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | Boston, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 07:59 pm |
|
brudgers wrote
Falls are a far greater hazard than fires and far more costly.
A fall only causes injury to the person that falls. A fire can take down a whole family, neighborhood, or more. Not to mention the property damage...personal and public. Spinklers would reduce the risk of harm to fire-fighters as well.
I admit that the odds of any one particular home burning to the ground and causing fatalities is minimal...but as a homeowner and a family-man....having the system would be money well spent.
Around here the average cost per SF for a new home is upwards of $200/SF. If you build a 2500 sf, it will cost 500k. Throwing in the sprinkler system for an additional 5k isnt going to break the budget at that price point. You could simply V.E. the subzero and wolf appliances for some GE stuff and cover the cost at no added expense.
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7339 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 08:24 pm |
|
wograr wrote: brudgers wrote
Falls are a far greater hazard than fires and far more costly.
A fall only causes injury to the person that falls. A fire can take down a whole family, neighborhood, or more. Not to mention the property damage...personal and public. Spinklers would reduce the risk of harm to fire-fighters as well.
I admit that the odds of any one particular home burning to the ground and causing fatalities is minimal...but as a homeowner and a family-man....having the system would be money well spent.
Around here the average cost per SF for a new home is upwards of $200/SF. If you build a 2500 sf, it will cost 500k. Throwing in the sprinkler system for an additional 5k isnt going to break the budget at that price point. You could simply V.E. the subzero and wolf appliances for some GE stuff and cover the cost at no added expense.
Now I understand.
You don't live in the real world.
|
wograr
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | Boston, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 11:51 pm |
|
brudgers wroteNow I understand.
You don't live in the real world.
No....I just happen to live in a world were there is no land and the resulting property values are exorbitantly inflated. It is all relative anyway...It just means that the sprinkler system will cost respectively more up here than in the midwest.
You don't have to make it personal. I suppose you consider that backwoods of 'Bama the real world?
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7339 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 12:34 am |
|
The real world is where people don't have a Sub-Zero to VE.
I suspect the vast majority of people in Boston live there just like I do.
|
wograr
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | Boston, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Exams Passed: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | | Describes Me: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 01:38 am |
|
Your right...and I am one of them; and if I were to build a new house for my family I would put a sprinkler system in it.
|
brudgers
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 1st, 2006 |
| Location: | The Moment |
| Posts: | 7339 |
| Exams Taken: | | | Exams Passed: | | | Describes Me: | Newly described. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 02:41 pm |
|
wograr wrote: Your right...and I am one of them; and if I were to build a new house for my family I would put a sprinkler system in it.
That's well and good.
Everyone else should be offered a similar choice.
|
wograr
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | Boston, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Exams Taken: | PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT | < | | |
