A private member's bill was introduced recently in the Ontario Legislature that, if passed, would make the installation of sprinkler systems mandatory in all new houses. Similar legislation has been introduced across North America, and in some cases, laws have been passed.
I stake my reputation on doing things right, and when it comes to safety, that means choosing the option that provides the most safety to the most people.
When it comes to fire safety in your house, the right options, hands down,are smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors and fire extinguishers.
What burns in your house is not just what it's made of, but also what you put in it. That's what makes up the "fire load," or what feeds the flame. The carpet, the curtains, the upholstery on your furniture -- all of it burns quickly, and some of it gives off toxic fumes that can knock you out and prevent your escape.
Smoke inhalation is far more dangerous than the fire itself, so you need properly functioning smoke detectors that will alert you, enabling you to get out of the house.
Apart from those caused by careless smoking, most fires in the home start in the kitchen when grease is ignited.
Sprinklers are not effective against such fires, and, in fact, they can spread the flames. For the best protection against kitchen fires, you need a fire extinguisher rated for grease or oil.
So why would I install a network of pipes full of water in every room that have the potential to cause all kinds of other trouble?
Sprinklers will knock down most fires quickly, which limits loss and damage from the flames. You'll likely suffer some water damage, but that will pale in comparison to whatever the fire might have done. But what if your sprinkler system goes off accidentally? Or if your pipes freeze?
You already know what happens if a water pipe bursts, is punctured or simply leaks. The odds of that happening increase with the more pipe there is behind the drywall. Additional pipes mean more possible condensation building up behind the wall, which causes mould -- a potential health problem.
Many insurance companies offer sprinkler discounts to homeowners, which sounds great. But they're worried about accidental discharges from the sprinkler systems, or that the system might be compromised some other way -- because of a bad plumbing job, for instance. So they'll insist that you have your system checked regularly, which is a cost that will cancel out any discount you might get on your insurance. (It's also a lot more costly than just changing the batteries in your smoke and carbon monoxide detectors twice a year, and having your fire extinguisher replaced regularly.)
We've all heard the statistics about people who had smoke detectors or fire extinguishers that didn't work when they needed them, because they forgot to change the batteries or replace them as needed.
A residential sprinkler system -- if you don't spend the money to maintain it properly -- can provide you with that same false sense of security, but at a lot more risk to your home's structure.
Any home builder or renovator will be happy to install sprinklers for you, and if that extra level of comfort is important to you, go ahead. But I don't recommend it. Making residential sprinklers mandatory in all new construction is a Band-Aid solution. We can do so much better.
The real question, as I see it, is why aren't we building houses using fire-retardant materials? And why doesn't the building code demand it? Why aren't we using five-eighthsinch drywall for building, rather than one-half inch --it provides a significantly better fire stop and better fire-resistance rating. And why not use a fire-stop sealant over drywall joints -- ordinary tape and drywall compound burns away and allows flames to get through the plasterboard and spread to adjoining rooms.
I'll tell you why: It's more expensive, and builders -- and new-home buyers -- want to avoid the extra cost.
Builders are using more composite wood products for subfloors and sheathing, rather than plywood. Because of how some of it's made -- with glue and wood chips -- it has been proven to fail in a very short time when there's a fire. Why is it used? It's cheaper. Why is it legal? Minimum building code again.
No material is "fire proof"-- everything will burn if the temperature is high enough. But by using fire-rated building materials and products that retard the spread of flames, we can increase the time it takes for a home to ignite and burn. That will also give people more time to escape, and ultimately save lives.
Maybe we can come up with a system that gives homeowners a discount on insurance, or even on their renovation loans, for using fire-rated products -- such as drywall, fire-resistant paint and plywood, concrete board and metal roofing, to name a few -- not just for sprinklers.
Or what about making it part of the building code to have a fire extinguisher specifically for grease and oil installed right over the stove?
If we're pushing for new legislation -- instead of a Band-Aid-like solution such as mandatory sprinklers, how about introducing something that will improve the building code standards for fire-resistant building? Let's build it right the first time.
Mike Holmes is the host of Holmes on Homes on HGTV. E-mail Mike at mikeholmes@holmeson-
homes.com or go to http://www.holmesonhomes.com