I recently came across a sprinkler-related report that's quite the page-turner. Written by Kent State University student Christiana Stegman and highlighted by the U.S. Fire Administration in one of its recent news roundups, the thesis underscores efforts by sprinkler opponents in Pennsylvania to nix sprinkler requirements for new homes that would have taken effect in 2011. Persuaded by convincing lobbyists, the state's lawmakers repealed the sprinkler requirement that year.
Stegman effectively outlines--and counters--the "number of arguments against the policy of requiring sprinkler systems in newly constructed one- and two-family dwellings" in her thesis, "The Impact of Residential Automatic Sprinkler Systems: An Examination of the Opposition Toward the Implementation of Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment in Pennsylvania." Citing NFPA research on sprinkler costs, Stegman tackles the argument "sprinklers will harm efforts at providing affordable housing nationwide." She also addresses additional arguments made by the opposition:
- "Sprinklers will not improve firefighter injuries and fatalities"
- "Sprinklers aren't needed since current construction assemblies have increased protection and safety measures in place"
Take a glance at the report when you get a minute, and learn how to counter other sprinkler myths with facts by visiting the Fire Sprinkler Initiative site.