Editorial: There's no rational explanation for opposing home fire sprinklers

Blog Post created by freddurso Employee on Sep 26, 2017

We recently reported on this blog a fire occurring inside a home where a grandmother lived with a couple and their two-year-old daughter. The grandmother was home alone at the time of the fire but escaped without injury following the activation of the home’s fire sprinklers.

The local fire service credited the sprinklers for preventing any injury or loss of life. A new editorial appearing in The Baltimore Sun also lauded this technology following the sprinkler save, stating that disputing the value of sprinklers is “befuddling.”

“There’s no rational explanation for opposing them,” states the editorial. “Having water running throughout the building just waiting to spring into action putting out a fire, on the off chance one might occur, sounds like a great idea."

While the editorial addresses water damage from a sprinkler activation (the Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition notes water from a fire hose uses eight-and-a-half times more water than fire sprinklers to fight a fire), it fully supports its life-saving ability.

“Let’s not forget that whenever someone questions the need for a fire suppression sprinkler system,” it states. “Contents and things can be replaced. A life cannot be replaced, and all lives matter.”