Dear Mr. Stofa:
I want you to know how much I appreciate the fact that you took the time to write to me about this important issue. All too often, citizens of our country choose to be part of the "silent majority," in spite of the many issues of concern to them.
It is primarily through correspondence such as yours that I am able to obtain the insights and understand the needs and priorities of my constituents and people throughout the country. I intend to do all I can to be an effective Senator in meeting the many challenges we face.
It is my hope that we will be able to make progress on issues of special concern to you and so many other Americans, and I thank you again for your letter.
Sincerely,Edward M. Kennedy
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Fire Sprinklers
It has come to my attention that some professionals in the Fire Science field have taken exception to my blog post. They feel that I should also include fire alarm systems in the bill that I'm proposing. I understand this constructive criticism and wish to add to it.
Fire alarm systems are vital and should be used in conjunction with fire sprinkler systems. Too often we see one system installed in lieu of the other. Thus, only providing half the needed level of fire protection. We need to break down the invisible wall that exists in the fire protection community between the pipe fitters (sprinklers) and the electricians (alarm). This wall has been in place since the invention of the two systems. It has done nothing but pit each discipline against each other. We need to come up with a different title / discipline that assumes fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems working and being installed together. We need to start working together in order to provide the best protection possible. Again, if divided we will only provide 50% of the required protection.
JMS
Fire alarm systems are vital and should be used in conjunction with fire sprinkler systems. Too often we see one system installed in lieu of the other. Thus, only providing half the needed level of fire protection. We need to break down the invisible wall that exists in the fire protection community between the pipe fitters (sprinklers) and the electricians (alarm). This wall has been in place since the invention of the two systems. It has done nothing but pit each discipline against each other. We need to come up with a different title / discipline that assumes fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems working and being installed together. We need to start working together in order to provide the best protection possible. Again, if divided we will only provide 50% of the required protection.
JMS
Friday, August 31, 2007
Can you agree with me?
If you agree with my post about fire sprinklers, please feel free to copy it and put it in you own words and send it to your State Senator...
Thanks!
JMS
Thanks!
JMS
Fire Sprinklers
Honorable Senator XXXX,
Why do we continue to see fire fighters die in fires at non-residential buildings where there are no civilians in need of rescue? In the past year we have lost nine fire fighters in Charleston, South Carolina in a furniture store fire, two fire fighters in New York City to a fire in an abandoned commercial high rise office building, and two firefighters to a chinese restaurant in Boston. This is probably in addition to others that do not make the national news. In each case, there were no civilians in peril within the building when the fire department arrived at the scene.
Having been a member of a fire department myself that lost a firefighter to a fire in a rug warehouse that was closed for the holidays, I know the empty feeling inside when you realize that you lost a brother because he was asked to defend items, stock, inventory, physical assets; all of which could have been replaced by the insurance company.
Since we are never going to stop fire fighters from entering buildings that are on fire, we need to offer a higher level of protection to both civilians and fire fighters alike. It is a widely accepted fact that fire sprinklers work. They protect both life and property. They stand guard waiting to be employed to extinguish or at least control a fire, and they cost very little when compared to the life expectancy of a typical building. Some original fire sprinklers that were installed back in the 1800’s are still in use today. Think about it, if you compare the original installation cost of the system, plus the periodic maintenance cost, to the number of years it has been in service; the cost of the system is probably less then the amount of money the building owner has spent on flowers for the front entrance.
The fact of the matter is, we expect a certain level of safety and security when we enter a commercial building or company property. We expect to be able to safely walk through the building and to not be electrocuted by exposed wires. We do not expect to be hit by a falling safe, piano or any other heavy object. We expect to not slip and fall on wet floors, and if the floors are wet, we expect to be warned by a sign or other hazard warning. In each of these cases, we would consider the owner negligent if they allowed the situation to continue to the point where someone was injured. So if we can expect a certain level of safety when we enter a property, we should then not expect to be killed by an out of control fire or smoke condition. Furthermore, why should a firefighter expect to be called to a building that is on fire only to find that the owner neglected to install a fire sprinkler system? The time has come to hold all non-residential building owners responsible for fire related deaths that involve a building without a fire sprinkler system.
I would like to propose a bill mandating that all non-residential building owners be required to have a fire sprinkler installed and maintained. In the event that the building does not have a sprinkler system, and any civilian or fire fighter is killed due to a fire or smoke condition, the building owner shall face manslaughter charges and a mandatory jail sentence. Furthermore, any and all of their other commercial properties will be seized and sold with the proceeds being paid to the surviving families.
Everyone knows that fire sprinklers save lives and property. It is time for building owners to step-up and invest in the safety of the people they profit from, and the people that protect their assets. We should not end the next 100 years with fire sprinkler being an option for building owners. The time to act is now.
I’d appreciate your attention and support in this matter.
Respectfully,
John M. Stofa
Why do we continue to see fire fighters die in fires at non-residential buildings where there are no civilians in need of rescue? In the past year we have lost nine fire fighters in Charleston, South Carolina in a furniture store fire, two fire fighters in New York City to a fire in an abandoned commercial high rise office building, and two firefighters to a chinese restaurant in Boston. This is probably in addition to others that do not make the national news. In each case, there were no civilians in peril within the building when the fire department arrived at the scene.
Having been a member of a fire department myself that lost a firefighter to a fire in a rug warehouse that was closed for the holidays, I know the empty feeling inside when you realize that you lost a brother because he was asked to defend items, stock, inventory, physical assets; all of which could have been replaced by the insurance company.
Since we are never going to stop fire fighters from entering buildings that are on fire, we need to offer a higher level of protection to both civilians and fire fighters alike. It is a widely accepted fact that fire sprinklers work. They protect both life and property. They stand guard waiting to be employed to extinguish or at least control a fire, and they cost very little when compared to the life expectancy of a typical building. Some original fire sprinklers that were installed back in the 1800’s are still in use today. Think about it, if you compare the original installation cost of the system, plus the periodic maintenance cost, to the number of years it has been in service; the cost of the system is probably less then the amount of money the building owner has spent on flowers for the front entrance.
The fact of the matter is, we expect a certain level of safety and security when we enter a commercial building or company property. We expect to be able to safely walk through the building and to not be electrocuted by exposed wires. We do not expect to be hit by a falling safe, piano or any other heavy object. We expect to not slip and fall on wet floors, and if the floors are wet, we expect to be warned by a sign or other hazard warning. In each of these cases, we would consider the owner negligent if they allowed the situation to continue to the point where someone was injured. So if we can expect a certain level of safety when we enter a property, we should then not expect to be killed by an out of control fire or smoke condition. Furthermore, why should a firefighter expect to be called to a building that is on fire only to find that the owner neglected to install a fire sprinkler system? The time has come to hold all non-residential building owners responsible for fire related deaths that involve a building without a fire sprinkler system.
I would like to propose a bill mandating that all non-residential building owners be required to have a fire sprinkler installed and maintained. In the event that the building does not have a sprinkler system, and any civilian or fire fighter is killed due to a fire or smoke condition, the building owner shall face manslaughter charges and a mandatory jail sentence. Furthermore, any and all of their other commercial properties will be seized and sold with the proceeds being paid to the surviving families.
Everyone knows that fire sprinklers save lives and property. It is time for building owners to step-up and invest in the safety of the people they profit from, and the people that protect their assets. We should not end the next 100 years with fire sprinkler being an option for building owners. The time to act is now.
I’d appreciate your attention and support in this matter.
Respectfully,
John M. Stofa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
