Sprinkler Clause Adds Wrinkle To Minnesota Bonding Debate

May 14, 2014

  • May 14, 2014 at 2:26 pm
    jim says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What the “naysayers” are saying us that those killed (families or firefighters) in dwelling fires are nothing more than “colateral damage” as respects to the overall cost benefit. Just like we expect thousands of automobile fatalities each year….ho-humm to bad so sad! Unless of course it’s one of your’s. Then you go looking for that attorney to “sue the bastards!”

  • May 14, 2014 at 3:49 pm
    Safetyguy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I hate to see it when people characterize all fire sprinkler systems the same.

    In this case, these are life safety systems which are not designed to extinguish a fire. they are designed to give occupants additional time to get out.

    Having interconnected smoke detectors is also the way to go, would be actuated at the same time as the sprinkler system actuates.

    Mind you neither is going to save the building. It’s up to the FD



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*