You are on page 1of 2

HOW FACTORY MUTUAL HELPED THE NFPA GUARANTEE THAT HOMES WOULD BURN

THE CORRUPT AND CORRECT SOLUTIONS TO THE FIRE PROBLEM There are two ways to solve the building fire problem. They are: 1. Allow the homes to burn but pay the victims the money to build a new building. 2. Automatically detect the early fire, automatically apply water spray and terminate it. The humane way (no. 2) is to eliminate serious building fires by approximately 99.9 percent. Our fire expert will be quick to claim that a fire sprinkler system cannot control fires and fire deaths by 99.9 percent so I attach a report by T. Seddon Duke to confirm that it is possible. Fire generates, in various ways, an estimated 500 billion dollars a year in profits and paychecks for those who benefit from fore. Many businesses and bureaucracies benefit from fire. Those who gain profits and paychecks because of fire are the committee members who write the fire codes. Fundamentally the codes are designed, not to eliminate fire, but rather to profit and benefit from the fire problem. NEARLY ALL FIRE DEATHS ARE PREVENTABLE For more than 50 years I have investigated the dishonesty and corruption that exists within the fire regulatory system. I am convinced that 9 out of 10 fire deaths within this nation could have been prevented except that the NFPA/UL/Fire Insurance combine structured regulations that effectively prevented reductions in fire losses and fire deaths The fire insurance industry created the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) during 1896 as a developer of fire codes which are enforced as laws. The first code developed (in 1896) was a sprinkler code so designed that huge and high valued industrial properties could be sprinkler protected but all other buildings could not be protected (except at greatly excessive pricing). The insurers needed the extremely high valued properties protected (excessive major size losses could bankrupt the insurer). But all other building types were more profitable to the insurers when devoid of reliable protective systems. This was a situation where profits trumped human lives. The fire insurance business requires a substantial percent of the buildings to suffer serious fire destruction to justify the high insurance rates, large cash flow through the system and the resultant profits.

NFPA CODES DENY FIRE SAFETY FOR NEARLY ALL BUILDINGS The home is the money tree for the fire insurance industry. The fire insurers profit greatly from the home market. During 1896 the fire insurers created an organization to write fire codes beneficial to the insurers. That organization, the National fire Protection Association (NFPA) produced a fire code that effectively prevented fire sprinkler systems from being installed in nearly all buildings within the United States. The insurers employed the NFPA plus Underwriters Laboratories to produce the fire codes and the certification of the equipment to make the cost of fire sprinkler system so very excessive for normal buildings that an estimated 98 percent of all buildings constructed during the next 80 years were built devoid of automatic fire control systems. All of the following Life-at-Risk type buildings and occupancies were denied affordable fire protection: : hotels, motels, schools, office buildings including the high rises, hospitals, nursing homes, apartment buildings, single family homes, houses of worship, bars, restaurants, night clubs, dance halls, theatres, small stores and commercial properties, etc.

If all homes became sprinkler protected there would have been very close to zero homes destroyed by fires. This would have occurred if the NFPA codes had not prevented it because economical sprinkler protection is by far the most cost effective way to control the fire problem, far leess costly that the high insurance costs over the life of the building and far less costly than the very extensive fire services needed in the absence of inherently fire safe buildings. However, buildings that would not burn would have dramatically reduced the fire insurers profits from the fire problem. Near zero serous building fires would have reduced fire deaths in homes to near the zero level. I CREATE AFFORDABLE FIRE SPRNKLER SYSTEMS During the early 1970s I created an affordable residential sprinkler system called the Life Safety System. The cost savings vs. the NFPA system was up to 90 percent. Yes, the system I created was proven to be able to be installed with cost reductions as high as 90 percent. I have proof of it. Also, I created the first ever affordable residential fire sprinkler system with even greater economies relative the NFPA sprinkler designs as of 1970. These advancements in fire protection were by far the most important advances in fire safety during the 20th Century. However, because of a decades long organized attack against the modernized protection systems few people today are aware of my accomplishments. I also created the first ever fire detection system code for dwellings. This system also was attacked and killed, but because of it home fire detectors became a part of home safety. Unfortunately, the NFPA even went so far as to make a defective type of smoke detector the standard promoted detector. Far too many businesses and individuals were benefitting from the home fire problem to allow affordable and reliable protection to be installed in homes. I will explain how the NFPA, with the aid of Factory Mutual and the insurers killed the affordable life safety oriented sprinkler system and the available water home fire suppression system as well. BARRIERS TO SAFE BUILDINGS WERE BUILT INTO THE NFPA CODES

Here are a few of the barriers built into the NFPA sprinkler code as of 1969 (before I created the Life Safety System and the presidential Life Safety System). 1. Section 2711, Page 39: The supply line to the sprinkler riser shall not be less than 4 inches (in diameter). 2. Table 2111, page29: The required water supply shall be 500 to 750 GPM for light hazard, Life-at-Risk type properties. Note: a reduction to a 250 GPM was authorized by the code but, in practice, the plan approvers invariably increased the water demand, not decreased. 3.