Posted on 07/15/2017 7:55:36 AM PDT by Lorianne
Approximately 100 firefighters battled a huge fire in a 36-story building in Hawaiis capital. At least 3 fatalities and 16 injuries were reported.
Firefighters have been battling a fire that broke out yesterday (Friday) in a 36-story building in Honolulu, Hawaii. The citys mayor has confirmed the death of at least 3 victims and stated that dozens more are trapped in their home. The building wasnt properly equipped with fire extinguishers.
oh my!
There were no sprinklers installed?? Did I read that right? Heads should roll, both inspectors and contractors.
I guess the American media is too busy chasing around Russians to report this...
Trump’s fault.
Built 1971. I have to wonder how many other hi-rises in the area don’t have fire suppression either.
Thanks for posting.. I’m really trying to give a care after HI declared an Islam day and continues to Declare war on a Ninety Day immigration Pause.. 90 days?...
I guess there were other regulations then however some cities have retrofitted and it has saved lives.
It’s been reported by the MSM for hours.
Yea that sounds bad.
The building may have been before sprinklers were required but one would have thought it would be retrofitted in some way.
Seems like now every day in Hawaii is “Kill Haole Day.”
I doubt that this building was full of Haoles.
.
Building owners rarely retrofit buildings on their own initiative out of the kindness of their hearts. There would have to be a law requiring them to do it, and given the opposition by moneyed interests that such a proposed law would garner, would be almost impossible to pass. At the most, you might have laws that require a retro-fit if, say, the building is expanded by X square feet. That may be the case in Hawaii, but it this building never had the required amount of expansion, it would never be retrofitted.
Many older buildings do not have sprinklers. I would not live in one. However my house does not have a sprinkler system and it does not concern me.
There is a national call to require all new homes to have sprinklers as do all modern high rises. Statistically the money is better spent elsewhere. That is if you are going to require people to spend money to prevent a death there are other expenditures that would save even more lives than sprinklers.
Me.I think just like gun free zones, you can make your own choices and live or not with the results free of government compulsion.
I think that there is a great difference between requiring a sprinkler system in a high rise building vs a single family home. Single family homes are one or maybe two stories and are much easier to escape from in case of fire. But as we have seen a burning high rise is a death trap without sprinklers.
More on residential sprinklers...here in PA there was an effort to get them into the building code. Architect that designed our home was instrumental in getting it defeated. Besides cost, the pipes are shipped packed with something as foul smelling as gear oil and are not flushed prior to installation. First time it goes off, anything the spray hits is ruined
A 36 story building without proper fire extinguishers? Good time to GET RID OF EVERY DAMNED DEMOCRAT IN HAWAII!
Not really a political issue, FRiend. Many cities have pre-fire-sprinkler buildings that could experience exactly the same tragic outcome in case of fire.
Some things aren't really about politics. This story is just sad, for everyone.
Agreed. Maybe too far off topic, but I’ve worked with a chain of hospitals in California, which was attempting to buy some distressed hospitals, and keep them in business.
The deal fell apart, due to a state law requiring some expensive earthquake retrofitting to the buildings.
So the company I work with decided to back out of the deal.
While well intentioned, that law requiring earthquake retrofitting could well have the effect of causing a money losing hospital to go out of business, and have a community lose a health care facility, because of the possibility of an earthquake.
While we know California is earthquake country, a “big one” may happen tomorrow, or may not happen in any of our lifetimes. These are the sorts of risks vs. costs analyses, that have to be measured, in order to come up with laws and public policies.
Agreed. Maybe too far off topic, but I’ve worked with a chain of hospitals in California, which was attempting to buy some distressed hospitals, and keep them in business.
The deal fell apart, due to a state law requiring some expensive earthquake retrofitting to the buildings.
So the company I work with decided to back out of the deal.
While well intentioned, that law requiring earthquake retrofitting could well have the effect of causing a money losing hospital to go out of business, and have a community lose a health care facility, because of the possibility of an earthquake.
While we know California is earthquake country, a “big one” may happen tomorrow, or may not happen in any of our lifetimes. These are the sorts of risks vs. costs analyses, that have to be measured, in order to come up with laws and public policies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.