PWallaby

All good comments here, pro and con.

I'm wondering what the long term outlook would be for a framed residential structure over say the next 50-100 years. What is the statistical likelihood that it would be involved in a fire versus what is the statistical likelihood that, if it had sprinklers, it would be involved in a sprinkler failure (and how many failures over that time span).

While I think the $2,000 cost per system to install is grossly understated (remember, you have to count more than just the pipe going in) I still take no issue with the initial install. You see, the majority of the work that I do is on very old houses, so I guess I'm more sensitive to how systems age over time. I'm certainly no big fan of galvanized pipe, and definitely not galvy that doesn't get flushed regularly. I'd suppose that you could get one of these systems made up with copper pipe and brass fittings, but there goes your $2,000 budget for certain.

As someone else referenced, the government websites:
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/national/residential.shtm

points out that the most likely cause of fire is going to be cooking (27%) but the greatest number of fatalities come from Arson (12%, followed by: Smoking 8%, Open Flame/Ember (fireplace?) 6%, and Other Heat/Spark 5%). In terms of fatalities, only 2% are attributable to Cooking, so while Cooking causes the biggest number of fires, they are fires that are readily survivable.

It seems like, perhaps, the fatal fires are ones that happen when folks are asleep (ignoring of course the leading cause of fatalities: Arson). So in something like that sprinklers and smoke alarms are going to make a big difference. Also, at least with the number 2 cause, smoking, these fires caused by behavior (smoking) and tightening up building standards won't prevent the cause. So again, sprinklers, fireproof materials and all should help.

In terms of loss of life, this is a problem that takes 3,000 lives each year. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Not to minimize things, but this number pales in comparison to traffic deaths (35,000) and gun deaths (35,000) both of which are also very resistant to legislative protection of any sort. The other observation that I would make is that there is such a diverse collection of fire causes (3% electrical, 3% heating, etc.) that it's going to be very hard to affect these fatality numbers meaningfully so instead of stopping them before they start, the solution is to fight them after they've begun.

I suppose we won't know the answer regarding statistics on property protection until 30 or 40 years have passed and we've had to live with and maintain these systems. You can bet that the insurance companies are going to be the first to give us a definitive, capitalist answer. If the cost to repair homes damaged by accidental discharge of a system (does "mold and mildew" ring a bell with anyone here?) starts to outweigh the cost of buildings lost to fire you're actually going to see a higher cost to insurance premiums for houses with systems.