Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By steve e ashton Readers with an interest in fire safety issues may like the following article... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/..._and_central/7047079.stmIf the issues are being reported fairly (and its a big 'if') then it seems there is a significant question here that needs to be answered in the courts... If you comply with a nationally recognised code - but don't follow professional / competent advice - are you likely to be held liable to any legal comeback in future? Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tarquin Farquor
A good article, thanks for posting the link Steve.
I think the NHS have a point?
Also, how many fire stations are fitted with sprinkler systems? It wasn't so long ago that they didn't even have smoke detectors?
Regards
TF
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Bannister
Having read the article I am surprised that the NHS trust were saying "If you have patients for example in an intensive care unit linked up to highly sophisticated electronic machinery it may not be the most sensible thing to have those patients and that equipment deluged with water." Quite true.
However, by the time the sprinklers operate the desperately ill patient will be already dead from smoke inhalation. Anyway, if they are relying on staff to extinguish a fire in its incipient stages, how can it grow to such a size that the sprinklers operate, particularly within a very highly staffed area as an ICU? If we have a fire that size then the delicate equipment will be dead too. Without sprinklers the fire service would put very much more water on to the fire over a wider area. What chance of delicate equipment survival then?
Good job the spokesperson works in the NHS - medical assistance is readily available for gunshot wounds to the foot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ciaran McAleenan
Steve et al
Jus a few thoughts...
I believe the Fire Code is not absolute on the use of sprinkler systems and that it contains a high degree of advice on limits and expectations of alternative design solutions.
The article does indicate that the Trust has taken advice (possibly even competent advice) which suggest a safe alternative to the sprinkler system.
The Trust has also indicated that they are reviewing the design decisions.
Just maybe there isn't a case to answer and little should be read into a piece of journalsitic prose. The full design details would be a far more interesting discussion point.
Best wishes
Ciaran
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
As it reads, it is the FBU who are jumping up and down, not the enforcers, who are using softer terms such as "recommend" and "suggest".
The FBU are of course entitled to their opinion, but that's all this is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.