by George Oster
Executive Officer, Fire Service Institute
Iowa State University Extension to Communities
The United States has the worst fire loss record of any country in the world. Each year in this country there are 3 million fires that result in approximately 6,000 deaths, 30,000 injuries and $6 billion in direct property loss.
Iowa has its fair share of the bad news. Between 50 and 70 people die in an average year and another 300 are injured. Last year (1994), however, 77 lives were lost in Iowa fires. Also, fires destroy $60 million worth of Iowa property annually. In terms of property loss, this is like having a 1993 flood every three years.
The reason this is a local community problem is that in the United States (unlike other countries), the cost of and responsibility for fire protection are left primarily in the hands of local government. In Iowa that means that cities and townships provide 99 percent of the financing for fire protection. The total state appropriation for fire protection in Iowa is approximately $2 million, less than the annual budget of the state's smallest career fire department (staffed with some paid fire fighters).
The primary mechanism used by Iowa communities for fire protection is "manual fire combat." This system consists of fire departments with fire trucks, hoses, nozzles and, most importantly, people, responding to fires and manually attacking them. When a fire occurs, somebody must first detect the fire and call the fire department. Then the department staff responds, sizes up the situation, and deploys equipment and people who manually fight the fire. The fire fighters must rush into the burning building when all others are rushing out.
Manual fire combat is an inferior mechanism for fighting fires. It's very dangerous to the people who risk their lives as fire fighters and it's ineffective (compared to alternatives) in saving lives and property from the ravages of fire. Time is always against manual combat. The size of many buildings makes it impossible for even the largest fire departments to distribute enough water in a given time period to arrest the fire before significant damage occurs.
In addition, manual fire combat is extremely expensive. Studies indicate that the cost of a typical fire station with full time fire fighters, is $15 million over its 30-year life span. In communities with volunteer fire fighters, the cost is significantly less. However, in light of the lower tax base of towns with volunteer departments, manual fire combat still represents a substantial outlay of local resources.
I know of no studies documenting the cost of volunteer departments, but to give you a sense of the money involved, consider that the cost to fully equip one fire fighter with protective clothing is $2,500 to $3,000. Fire trucks for a typical small fire department cost $100,000 to $200,000.
Most communities are resigned to manual fire combat, even if they recognize its shortcomings, because they know of no viable alternatives. However, contrary to what many think, there is a safe, effective, and less costly method of fighting fire. The alternative is the automatic sprinkler system. All that's needed for this method of fire fighting is a water supply to each building (city water or a tank and pump) and a network of pipes and sprinkler heads that detect fire and can operate independently of one another.
When a fire occurs, the sprinkler head detects the fire when and where it starts and instantly sprays a small amount of water directly on the fire, containing it before it spreads. They then automatically summon the manual fire suppression forces for back up and final extinguishment if needed. A system like this in a private dwelling would cost between $600 and $1,000 if installed during construction, less than the cost of carpeting.
There is no better method of protecting lives and property from fire. One study found that over an 80 year period, only five people died in sprinkler-protected buildings. Compare this to the 16 Americans who die in fires each day in buildings not protected by sprinklers. As for property loss savings, insurance records show a 90 percent reduction in loss when fire occurs in buildings equipped with sprinklers compared to buildings without sprinklers We estimate that less than 5 percent of buildings in Iowa have sprinkler systems.
Local communities have the power to require buildings to have sprinkler systems. Minimally, we recommend that schools and public buildings have systems. The state already requires them in nursing homes. Since most loss of life occurs in private dwelling fires, the use of sprinklers in these buildings should be encouraged. Perhaps, the public would be better served if a portion of the public money spent on manual fire combat were invested in sprinkler systems, or for low interest loans to encourage their installation. The local government would save money in the long run through switching emphasis from manual fire combat to early fire detection and extinguishment. More importantly, the loss of life and property could be dramatically reduced.
Contacts:
Terry L. Besser, ISU
Extension Sociology, (515) 294-6508
Del Marks, ISU Extension
Communication Systems, (515) 294-9807
