2 ms·
> Presumably - construction materials + fire fighting methods have improved dramatically in that time so buildings are much safer now. I wouldn't be so sure.
by emodendroket 5y ago
> Presumably - construction materials + fire fighting methods have improved dramatically in that time so buildings are much safer now.
I wouldn't be so sure. Fire prevention methods have improved, but instead of booking the safety gains, this has been seen as a reason to allow wooden structures that previously would not have been legal to build (the famous 5-over-1).
- handmodel 5y agoFWIW fire deaths have gone down by half since the 70s. Perhaps you could attribute this to fire alarms or better automatic sprinklers but overall this is a very good trend given population trends. I'm also fairly certain that better fire retardant materials are used now and that's why wooden structures are allowed. Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Trend-in-US-fire-deaths-11_fig2_312511670 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Trend-in-US-fire-deaths-...
- emodendroket 5y agoI read a lot about these in local news because I used to live in a town in Massachusetts where one of those buildings burned down in construction. According to what I read, it's mostly the sprinklers that make it safe (or at least viewed that way) -- before those go in they're a big tinder box. This trend really took off with building code changes in 2009 though, so 1970 might not be the right starting point.
- alphabettsy 5y agoBattery powered smoke detectors as we now know them came out in the 70s.
- handmodel 5y agoI guess my larger point is if risk of death by fire gets cut in half because of variables other than extra staircases - then the benefit of adding extra staircases gets cut in half while the cost remains the same (or even increases).
- kube-system 5y agoAssuming that they are independent factors. In many instances, a life may be saved by the interaction of two variables. Signaling and egress often contribute in complementary functions.