I posted about the Tahoe fire hoping to get some comments on fire resistant construction, but the powers that be seemed to think that discussing fire safety is a tavern issue and moved it there. However, I will try again:
What do you feel are among the most cost effective construction techiques to improve the fire safety of the typical home?
What are the most cost effective construction methods for building a new home?
Replies
Defensible space is probably #1. If you have trees and heavy vegetation leading a path to your building then not much will save you. Clay tile or metal roofs, stucco... those are improvements over wood siding and cedar roofs.
Defensible space is probably #1
I saw an interview with the guy who had the only house to survive the Lake Tahoe fire. Seems he broke the law by clearing brush and trees to 75-100' away from the house. Local ordances limited clearing to 30'. Erosion control was given as the reason for small clearing limit.
Wonder if they will revisit that ordinance?
Dave
Kind of a moot point now ain't it. :-)
Well, obviously the first rule is to not build where fire is a hazard. The next step beyond that is to clear the area around the house of hazardous plantings, and maybe substitute some of the "fireproof" plants.
I gather that the biggest hazard for the house itself, short of wood decks and such, is the roof. Metal or clay is best, wood shingle worst. I would guess that FG shingles are slightly better than organic felt, but hard to say how much better. For metal, likely some sort of firring would be advised to hold the roofing away from framing, should a large flaming branch or some such land on the roof.
Re the deck, I'd guess that your plastic composites are somewhat more fire-resistant than most species of wood.
For walls, solid concrete is obviously best, then stucco and FC. Most other composite siding is likely better than wood or vinyl. Hard to say where metal fits in -- though it doesn't burn it won't hold off heat very well.
Need to pay attention to soffits -- flames can easily enter a wood or vented metal soffit in an otherwise fireproof house.
Doors and windows could also be a problem. Probably the best plan is to have metal "hurricane shutters" to cover them.
I wonder to what extent some sort of active protection would work. I know that lake-fed sprinklers were used to good effect in some of the areas adjacent to the Boundary Waters this year. Many homes in fire-prone areas have at least a pool as a water source, but the trick would be to automate things in such a way that water is appropriately rationed.
"Well, obviously the first rule is to not build where fire is a hazard."I agree- building where fire is highly likely is like building below sea level. "Build on high ground", "Don't build where there are fires" and "Always drink upstream form the herd" are all useful sayings.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
The two questions you pose are to some degree an answer to the one you posted in the Tahoe fire thread.
That is, that fire resistance is not the most cost effective way to build a home!
So people build flameable homes.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
FHB had an article on this about 3-4 years ago some CA wildfires.One of the main things was to keep tender away from the house.I am trying from memory here and might not all be right. For the roof tile or metal.And limited small wood on the exterior. Timbers are OK.And a few things that one would not quess without studying a bunch of burnouts.IIRC one had to do with roof venting.Those could draw in fire..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=36190.1
http://forums.taunton.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=tp-breaktime&msg=53348.35&search=y
http://forums.taunton.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=tp-breaktime&msg=36351.1&search=y
http://forums.taunton.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=tp-breaktime&msg=51752.1&search=yhttp://www.taunton.com/store/pages/fh_toc_162.asp
.
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
>That is, that fire resistance is not the most cost effective way to build a home!Can I offer a dissenting opinion? :)
Sure, the current fire at Lake Tahoe has the news right now .... but consider this: Very few homes burn because of an outside fire lighting the structure. Nearly all fires are inside the house, and are fed by the contents of the home. Furniture, carpet, appliances, clothing .... that's what burns. Even concrete and steel buildings can be destroyed by fire; again, it's what's inside that matters. Let's not get swept up by the hysteria of the moment ... and retain our priorities.
Conceding your statement that, most fires that destroy homes are from the interior, is fact. And, I have no doubt that it is indeed fact.
That statistic misses one element. The vast majority of homes are not built in environments where a major external fire is even a remote possibility. Add to that, if our neighbor's yard or exterior is on fire, living in town we call the Fire Department and they come put it out in a reasonably short time.
I think that if you isolated homes in forested areas of the western USA, and probably Canada, the statistics would be strikingly different.
I am discussing such things with a friend who's new home will be on a wooded site, bordered on two sides by Forest Service property that has not been logged in the last hundred years, if ever. The terrain is extremely rugged and fire fighting when it does burn will be nearly impossible.
Externally ignited fire is the major concern. I currently have him leaning towards a banked earth, concrete structure, similar to VATom's.
No, nothing is "fire proof", but some things are incredibly more fire resistant. I think the original poster, was wondering about what materials and methods will be more resistant.
And, to us in the wooded areas, resistance to an external fire is a major design consideration.
The floor is open....
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
The what do you walk on?
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
I have to agree that the concerns in a typical urban area - the Oakland, CA, hills possibly except if that is considered an urban area - is quite different from building in an area that is periodically swept by wildfires - such as the LA canyons or the Tahoe area. The problem with a large defensible space is that you are basically destroying the ambiance that most people move to the area for. You are basically creating a foreign environment - i.e. the lawn - in an area that has ecological values that most of us would like to preserve. Not to mention that fertilizer runoff from lawns is one of the reasons that the fabled clarity of Lake Tahoe is being destroyed by algae. Ice plants would be better than lawns but would still be alien plant forms. Timber frames can be considered fire resistant if they are thick enough - a rule of thumb is that something over about 6"x8" will burn slowly enough that the building is unlikely to collapse - given a reasonable safety factor in the design of the beams. Of course, even though the house with such beams may not collapse, I doubt that one would consider the house restorable if the beams were still standing but charred to a depth of 2" or so...I was hoping to get someone tossing out some figures on what the various costs might be for a more fire resistant alternative to the stick built house. I would guess that Frency's idea of a SIP house would be more fire resistant than normal stick built if the siding and roof were fire resistant materials and particular attention was paid to creating eaves that were fire resistant - perhaps just having cement board soffits would help. I am not nearly as convinced as Frency, however, that a typical SIP house would withstand a major conflagration with minimal damage - above a certain temperature, the typical insulation in a SIP becomes flammable, so if the siding were damaged, the SIP house could burn with a pretty high intensity. I have yet to see a good analysis of the houses that survived the Oakland Hills fire and the LA canyon fires. If anyone knows of a resource for such information, I would appreciate it.Thanks, Casey
>I was hoping to get someone tossing out some figures on what the various costs might be for a more fire resistant alternative to the stick built house.The ones I've been designing have been running construction costs of $110/sf to $175/sf, with the difference being in fixtures and finishes, mostly.
"I have yet to see a good analysis of the houses that survived the Oakland Hills fire and the LA canyon fires. If anyone knows of a resource for such information, I would appreciate it."Isn't that what was in the FHB article?It has been awhile since I read it.
.
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
View Image
Oklahoma fire
Budget should be same as conventional custom construction. Certainly not the only way, but it's one of the ones that works without a price premium.
vatom has the ultimate fireproof house.
Plus it was, and continues to be, cheap.
Casey, I'm concrete and steel. 2' of dirt on the roof. No active heating or cooling system "needed" (13º annual temp swing, outside was 85º swing). A client house (same construction) appraised 50% higher than construction cost. That's comparing it to traditional construction. The shell was not the only reason, but a substantial part.
No cave, upwards of 30% of floor sq ft in windows. Standard commercial construction, beefed up for the earth loads.
No physical worries living here in the forest, 80' trees within 14' of the house. Top 50' of one came down on the roof. No damage.
Unsure I'd want to live here after a catastrophic forest fire, but the house would survive. I'm replacing it with another one, very similar.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
You have probably posted them in the past, but any chance of some pics of your house? It sounds very interesting. I live among large trees that would turn my house into kindling if they hit it. It's a bit disconcerting in high winds.
It's just a buried bent box. Here's a page with pix put up by a guy promoting passive heating/cooling discussion: http://paccs.fugadeideas.org/tom/index.shtmlPAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
"It's just a buried bent box."
You are selling yourself a bit short with that description. Its a pretty cool buried bent box. Thanks for the link.
CaseyR
Fine home buildings back issue had an article about the house that survived the California fire .
Covering your yard with Ice plant and you home with stucco and a tile roof isn't the only way to survive..
ICF construction offers a two hour fire rating.. if the exterior is clad in stone or sstucco and the roof covered with slate or tile you have a good chance..
Metal roofs will afford very little fire protection.. they conduct heat so completely that the underlying wood will ignite..
I live on a lake, it would be extremely simple to change the sprinkler system feed by the lake to a sprinkler system designed to spray or cool the the building. use a generator to power the system if the power is overhead, if buried most likely you'll have power even in a fire..
If you have city water you must evalute the reliability of the system in a fire.. most city water systems use a water tower to provide water pressure so they could be a reliable water provider as long as you aren't the last home on the system and everybody drains water trying to fight the fire.. If you are close to the water tower you are probably pretty secure..
We just had a fire in Raleigh NC that was spread by flames jumping the firewall in a multi-unit townhouse complex by jumping through the attics linking by way of the soffit vents and fed by the chimney action of the soffit and ridge vents. The opinion at the lumber yard was that using spray foam on the underside of the roof and sealing the attic would have limited the air supply into the attic and reduced the speed with which the fire spread (20 units collapsed simultaneously)
Given the risk of a brush fire or forest fire and still wanting to build an affordable house I would opt for a steel roof over 5/8" ply with 5" of spray foam and a sealed attic. Then use a fire resistant siding such as Hardi Board or true stucco on lath (not EIFS) with aluminum clad windows like weathershield or equal (extruded, not wrapped exteriors) and detail the overhangs with hardi soffit and hardiboard fascia. This is still an economical and conventional way to frame and allows you to get high R-value and energy star performance while using standard subs and systems.
------------------
"You cannot work hard enough to make up for a sloppy estimate."
Spray foam burns like rocket fuel ... using it where you expect exposure to open flame is little different than placing a jar of gasoline there. Believe it or not, the Oakland had Tahoe fires are far from the first time the issue of fire spread has been addressed. For example, roofing materials. Different materials are rated "A", "B", or "C" by UL ... which subjects them to actual fire tests. In a similar manner, UL publishes a "Fire Resistance Directory" that gives construction details for various rated roof, wall, and door assemblies. Again, these assemblies have all been tested to actual fire conditions. I suppose that, ultimately, it's a question of how big a fire you want to design your structure to survive. Even granting an outside source for a fire, and the outer structure catching fire, keep in mind that most of the "fire" that will destroy the house will come from the contents burning. From the outside, homes have two primary areas that are vulnerable to fire: the roof, and the windows.
Roofing material, and slope, will make a big difference as to whether falling embers settle there, and light the place up. Every vent pipe, skylight, and valley can become a collection point for embers. Windows have a habit of breaking; even if they don't, enough radiant heat can pass through to get the drapes burning. So, I suppose that precaution #1 here is to have good, heavy, fiberglass drapes! While I am not aware of any real testing having been done to prove the merit of the idea, I suggest that simply hanging a piece of drywall over the outside of the window would be an effective precaution. If we can do that for hurricanes, we can do it for fires. Likewise, a simple 'soaker hose,' laid across the roof, would weep enough water to keep the roof damp. This would greatly aid in dealing with the smaller embers - without using up all the neighborhood's water pressure. Again, I expect most roof fires are lit by small embers - not three pound blazing logs.
"Spray foam burns like rocket fuel ... using it where you expect exposure to open flame is little different than placing a jar of gasoline there." Actually the point of using spray foam and going to a sealed attic is that it allows you to eliminate the soffit and ridge vents and thereby prevent open flame from entering the attic and preventing oxygen from feeding any fire that may get started there. The first time I encountered spray foam I took a bag of fresh trimmings out into the driveway and lit it on fire. It does burn, and emits very noxious black smoke in the process, but the type we use, Sealection 500 Demelak, certainly doesn't burn like rocket fuel or even like a jar of gasoline. What type of foam have you been burning that displayed these characteristics?------------------
"You cannot work hard enough to make up for a sloppy estimate."
Another good point on a sealed attic is that it is less likely to conduct or radiate heat through the roof area ( assuming you dont have a combustible roof installed).
Radiant heat is the most likely to catch a house on fire in a forest fire. Often a house will burst into flames before the fire acually touches it.
<The first time I encountered spray foam I took a bag of fresh trimmings out into the driveway and lit it on fire. It does burn, and emits very noxious black smoke in the process, but the type we use, Sealection 500 Demelak, certainly doesn't burn like rocket fuel or even like a jar of gasoline. What type of foam have you been burning that displayed these characteristics?>Yep, I'm thinking of using the Demilec in a new house, and tried the same thing. The stuff will burn, if there is a flame directly applied to it...as soon as the flame is removed, it's out.I can see how burning framing members, or the usual bags of tinder folks keep laying around would keep it going...but that's just on other reason to love PEX!<G>Hey, next time you see me, hang around and talk...LOL Someone's got it in for me, they're planting stories in the press
Whoever it is I wish they'd cut it out but when they will I can only guess.
They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy,
She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me.
I can't help it if I'm lucky.
renosyeinke.
wow! where did you get your information? most foam used in construction has a chemical to self extinguish.
My home is built using SIP's. Basically you use a modifed charcoal lighter to melt out the foam for custom work.. if the foam catches fire you simply remove the cutter and the flame goes out.. as long as the foam is in direct heat it will burn but then so will furniture and carpet and darn near everything in the house..
However one of the things they use to sell SIP's is a bonfire test.. basically they build a bonfire in the corner of a SIP built room.. temp on the surface of the sheetrock is 1500 degrees.. while the exterior temp is only 50 degrees higher than ambiant.
another words it's insulation is very good at keeping fire from spreading..
Frenchy, you ask a fair question. My opinion on the flamability of foam is based upon two things:
First, there are literally decades of data from the ASTM E-84 test for surface burning characteristics. This is the same as the "Steiner Tunnel" I described.
I have personally conducted hundreds of these tests, on everything from cement board to office carpet. I even tested many SIP type products. I have also participated in many other types of fire tests- all to industry standards. Second, there are the instructions and engineering data provided by every foam manufacturer that I know of, instructions that say in effect "wrap in drywall, and if laying horizontal (as on a floor or ceiling) ... wrap at least twice!" Every foam manufacturer concedes that the E-84 tests, if anything, understate the fire risk posed by foam.
Not just the E-84 test fails to support these additives. In virtually every full scale fire test, it is impossible to see any difference. The only test that seems to be influenced is where a small piece is briefly exposed to a small flame. Others have contradicted my statement that fire department tankers carry fuel. I stand by my statement. While I cannot speak for every tanker, everywhere .... every tanker I have seen has been a fuel tanker.
Look at two other details to justify such a use:
First, the pump on a fire truck is quite capable of emptying such a tank in minutes - if not seconds. The tank barely holds enough to prime the pump.
Second, look at the fuel capacity of a fire truck ... and compare to the rate fuel is used while pumping. In a major fire, pumpers will need refueling multiple times.
I cannot accept that my statement was an "error." Self extinguishing? Yea, right. That's what they all claim. The ASTM test fails to document any difference.
Well, I'll stand by my statement that every tanker I've seen has been for water. There aren't fire plugs every 100 feet out in the sticks -- if a fire is going to be fought nine times out of ten they're gonna need to haul water.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Dan,
What may be happening here is a difference in regional terminology. I grew up with firefighters. An Engine was a pump truck , it carried a limited amount of water
, it was designed to provide pumping power out of the mains or whatever water source was available. Sometimes called a Pumper A Truck was a Ladder truck , Generally a powered extension ladder. A Tanker was for Hauling water or fuel , depending on the adjectives used in defining ie: water or fuel."Poor is not the person who has too little, but the person who craves more."...Seneca
Well, I'd guess that the typical fire truck carries at least 50 gallons of fuel. Figuring 10 gallons per hour, that would be about 5 hours of operation (which is a fairly long time for a rural fire). In a typical rural situation you might have three trucks (not counting tankers), with a total capacity of 150-300 gallons. To resupply those trucks then you'd need a truck or trailer with maybe 300-500 gallons capacity, and you'd have several hours before it was needed. Some fire departments may have such a truck or trailer, but most would just have an arrangement with a local farm fuel vendor to supply them if needed.The tankers used out here are water tankers of about 2000 gallon capacity. In other parts of the country, where wells aren't practical and so there are commercial water haulers, often the water haulers are contracted to work with the FD.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
I agree with you dan. We have 18 volunteer fire departments in Nacogdoches county and 5 departments in the cityand every one of these tankers carry water. In the rural areas, hydrants are rare, so we need water tankers. Some carry as much as 3000 gallons. The one item that helps these situations is having a dump tank, then water shuttles begin. I have been on a fire for 18 hours straight and we never refueled. The trucks wer running most of these hours as we were fighting over 4000 acres and setting back fires.
renosteinke,
I didn't lie to you when I described my experiance with my SIP's . If using the melter I managed to start a fire, simply removing the melter caused the flame to go out..
That is fact.. Not opinion, not suspician, not some data I read someplace..
Actual experiance.. I've watched the video and conducted my own tests on scraps and to my satisfaction SIP's do contain fires.. they do not cause fire to spread.
Now it's been decades since I taught fire fighting to the men in my squadron. But The Navy sent me to fire fighting school in San Francisco where they put me in closed rooms with hundreds of gallons of fuel dumped in and the only way out was to extinguish the fire. Face to face with roaring fires and young sailers and a hose between me and cooking taught me to understand both the power and weakness of fire..
That's actual experiance. Not theory not something I've read but experiance..
The average house today is highly flammable and extremely short lived in fire.. SIP's and ICF's offer dramatic fire endurance improvements over common stick built homes.. Yes they can burn, but not anywhere near as fast as a stick built home will burn..
Frenchy, if you were able to decipher my previous post giving the parameters of polystyrene, it would indicate why you experienced what you did. As stated:"Flash Ignition Temperature: The lowest initial temperature of air passing around a molded sample of EPS at which a sufficient amount of combustible gas is evolved to be ignited (ASTM D 1929). 698 ºF (370 ºC)"What this means is that you try and light a sample of extruded polystyrene and its temperature is below the flash ignition temperature of 698 degree F., then the burning will cease when you remove the flame that is causing a limited area to be above that temperature and burn. If, however, the conditions are such that your sample is above 698 degrees, then combustible gases are given off by the polystyrene and an ignited sample will continue to burn, possibly vigorously. This condition can probably be met by a wildfire firestorm surrounding a house. This condition can also be met inside rooms where various contents can burn at temperatures to raise the walls of the room above the flash ignition temperature of polystyrene - which can and has happened.
Edited 7/2/2007 11:37 pm ET by CaseyR
CaseyR
One simple question for you. What else will burn at those temps? Carpets, drapes, bedding etc?
Also please remember SIP's contain the foam inside OSB, OSB is an effective oxygen barrier and since oxygen is required for fire the chance of fire in a SIP is far less than the chance of fire in a typical stick built home which does not seal the insulation.
I do not state that it is impossible to burn down a SIP house. Mearly that it's properties dramatically reduce the likelyhood of fire..
In the example demostrated in their video with a bonfire in the corner of a room.. the sheetrock provided protection from open flame but the insulation was prevented from ignition due to the lack of oxygen inside the panel..
Stick built homes on the other hand have a 2x material every 16 inches and plenty of available oxygen. IF the sheetrock reaches 1500 degrees as it did in this case, the stud is then at nearly that temp which is above woods ignition point. Available oxygen plus ignition temp leads to failure..
I can look in fire resistance directories, and find many, many examples of 'stick built' floor/ceiling, or wall, assemblies that are proven to have specific fire resistance ratings. Everything from 20 minutes to 4 hours. Loaded and unloaded. Before I would be willing to accept an SIP as a fire wall, I would want similar certifications to be available. Does the system you are using have any such documentation?
renosteinke,
Paperwork! Ugh!
Yes, I well imagine that it's available with exactly the same requirement that building a fire wall with studs has. The differance is that when exposed to a fire the sole protection of stick built really comes from the sheetrock systems in place and it's ability to resist heat transfer..
Where as a SIP is basically a contained unit. it's OSB precludes allowing oxygen from entering the "cavity" thus there is no oxygen to support combustion like there is in a stick built wall. Lacking oxygen there is no fire..
A Stick built wall on the other hand has plenty of oxygen to allow fire to enter the cavity.. Take a typical fiberglass matt and compress it. It will! Thus the space not occupied by the strands of fiberglas have oxygen Foam on the other hand isn't as compressable.
ICF walls do have a two hour fire rating, If you'd like I'll dig thru my receipts and find who issued the rating.. My SIP information isn't readily available at this point, but if needed I'll find it later this summer/fall
Actually, fire testing somewhat contradicts your model. I will not deny that drywall has a major effect on the fire resistance of a wall. Indeed, this effect is so large that the presence / absence of any kind of insulation has essentially no effect on the fire rating of a wall. (Ceilings, especially ones with open attics above them, are a different animal entirely). One of the interesting results of fire testing is that, contrary to everyone's campfire experiences, wood doesn't really burn in a stick-framed wall. Rather, due to a LACK of air, it chars ... and quite slowly at that. Steel studs, on the other hand, transmit heat to the opposite face quite readily. End result: absolutely no difference in fire performance, whether the studs are light steel, or wood. A flammable material used for facing will burn away quite readily. Once it is gone, whatever is behind it is fully exposed to flame. No matter how particle board is made, it's pretty hard to compete with the two water molecules trapped in a gypsum crystal when it comes to fire protection. You mentioned a "bonfire" test. I am not aware of this test. Manufacturers are simply brilliant in coming up with demonstrations that showcase their products. Yet, when it comes to fire resistance comparison, we already have a slew of "ASTM" fire test methods - tests that are repeatable, and whose results parallel real world results. Unlike a conventional frame wall - all of whose parts are considered generic, and construction methods standard - manufactured products (like SIP's) are each unique designs. This means that each specific product, with all its' fittings, needs to be individually tested for fire resistance. The rating is most often evidenced by a UL label, which will specify the fire rating of the completed assembly. The label is found on every such assembly. Manufacturers' data sheets will also describe the ratings attained. UL is not the only game in town. FM is also a major player in this area. I am sure there are others. SIP's do serve many important needs. I have even done fire tests on several such products. I am NOT saying that they are bad at all. Yet, my experience has been that, once the facing is either removed or gets above about 250 degrees, the foam within begins a very rapid degradation. This confirms my position that foam is simply not suitable where it may be exposed to flame, and needs something to shield it.
renosteinke
Your last sentence stated a true fact that I will accept.. Foam is not suitable when exposed to flame..
OK, if that is true then let us consider what must occur to get flame to the foam.. first we must burn thru the sheetrock.. you pointed out how difficult that is.. then we need to burn thru the osb. Admittedly much easier but I repeat, first we must burn thru sheetrock.. then and only then do we get to the osb, once the osb is burned thru we finally get to the foam.. Once exposed to flame foam can only burn on the surface, not internally as can a stud in a stick built home. thus the only portion capable of burning is that which is not exposed. The same way that gasolene will not burn in the absence of oxygen, foam inside a solid panel cannot burn..
In stick built homes once thru the sheetrock the stud bay is open to air.. In addition in a stick built home assuming fiberglas insulation you have 1392 cubic inches of air less the compressed thickness of the fiberglas.. That's an awful lot of oxygen to use up in a fire.. even if the sheetrock should be able to withstand the heat and pressure of fire. the heat from the burning stud will transfer to any weak spot where fire can once again draw some oxygen.
Edited 7/4/2007 11:34 am ET by frenchy
The other point I tried to make is that stud bay - assuming fireblocking is present - does NOT provide air to a fire. The model of rapid consumption of the wood inside, once the rock is damaged, is not confirmed in the fire tests. The wood slowly chars, rather than burst in to flame. At one time, walls were made with fireblocking at waist height, as well as between floors. The codes were changed, and this practice ended, as the result of fire tests that demonstrated no advantage to having the additional blocking. On the other hand, the same test did greatly show the importance of filling holes in the blocking ("draft stopping"). Today, when a wall has bracing at the 4 ft level ... it's there for some other reason, not fire blocking. This time, the entire foam discussion got started when I responded, when someone suggested filling eave vents with foam as a way to stop fire spread. Foam might be wonderful for some things, but stopping fires is not one of them. The Nuclear Plant at Browns' Ferry nearly was destroyed, when a fire started in the foam a plumber was using to seal around where his pipes passed through the wall. As a result, an entire industry making 'fire caulk' was born.
I hate to disagree with the refueling, but...
A pumper on an average fire pumps at about 90-110 psi. unless their pumping uphill or above the first floor. Then several other factors combine to adjust your setting.
At this setting your pumper is running just above idle. At least it was the case for the 5 different pumpers I have ever used.
You dont think the truck can idle all day if necessary?
Water tankers/tenders on the other hand have to be fueled periodically as they are allways on the road. They usually stop and get fuel.
At this setting your pumper is running just above idle.
No lie. You start needing to "pull revs" on that PTO pump, and the engineers get all antsy. Unless, it's a daisy chain from a distant hydrant, or you're working every 2.5" line on the engine, or, your engine gets saddled with providing water for the trucks and a fire monitor . . .
Is there some secret rule among the ladder johnnies to never, ever, fill the on-board tank? Some sort of weird, 'let's make the engine company do it' pecking order thing?
<sigh>Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Unless, it's a daisy chain from a distant hydrant, or you're working every 2.5" line on the engine, or, your engine gets saddled with providing water for the trucks and a fire monitor . . .
That does happen every so often but by that time theres usually another pumper there. yeah those trucks arent designed to take a lot of prolonged stress in pump gear.
Is there some secret rule among the ladder johnnies to never, ever, fill the on-board tank?
I've asked that question before with no good answer. Theres a lot of ladder trucks that dont even have water in it at all. Most dont even carry more than 500 gal. With 2000 GPM pump thas only 15 seconds worth of water. Just enough to keep the pump primed.
Some sort of weird, 'let's make the engine company do it' pecking order thing?
pssst. dont let no hose jockey here you say that. they think there in charge of the fire.
Excuse me! We are in charge of the fire!My brain + his brawn = a perfect team!
But we get to play with all the tools.
yeah, but the tools you play with are short and skinny. Mine is 2" to 3" round and very long and stiff!!My brain + his brawn = a perfect team!
tools you play with are short and skinny
They make 'short' pike poles now?
I mean, I'm old, as in steel-bottle Scott AirPaks old, but, but, a short pike?
Idnt that bit like a rubber pittman?Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
Okay, I agree that pike poles are long, but they're still skinny!My brain + his brawn = a perfect team!
Non-combustible materials in a fire zone seems to make sense but apparently only to me and a few others. Yeah, cedar shakes and shingles look great but c'mon! If it's highly likely that a fire will be near the house in a matter of only a few years, it's a bad idea. Since wood is such a bone of contention for so many people and so much is sub-standard, why more people in fire zones aren't using metal studs with cementitious siding and roofing is beyond me. Concrete block or poured concrete with non-combustible materials that look like wood, since a lot of the siding and trim will be stained anyway, could make a huge difference in how many homes are lost every year.
The framing material is of little significance in these situations. You basically have three concerns:1) flaming embers landing on the roof
2) radient heating of the siding (and windows/doors)
3) flames drawn into attic vents and similar openingsOnly for #1 is flammability of even the exterior cladding that significant. Rather, the exterior cladding needs to insulate reasonably well, so that heat isn't conducted into the interior, and it needs to be reasonably "tight", so that flames aren't drawn in.Once interior temps reach the kindling point a fire will start inside, pretty much regardless of the framing material. Steel framing might increase the time required for this to happen by 5-10 minutes, which may be significant in a few cases, but probably not very many. Doors and especially windows are a much bigger concern.Also note that, unlike the usual fire concerns where the intent is to simply slow fires so that people can escape from the building, in this case it does relatively little good to be "only a little pregnant" -- if any part of the main structure catches fire the house is apt to be a total loss, so simply slowing the flames once they're inside the house isn't useful.On the other hand, if exterior trim or siding is scorched or otherwise damaged, it's no big deal. The important thing is that it not contribute to the loss of the structure.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
"1) flaming embers landing on the roof
2) radient heating of the siding (and windows/doors)
3) flames drawn into attic vents and similar openings"Re:
1) composite non-combustible materials should be chosen in a fire zone.
2) Same, already recommended.
3) So planning ahead can't happen, a cover can be installed to eliminate the draft into the vents? Planning ahead and knowing the area, NOT having large trees right next to the house and covering the windows can save a lot of structures. People cover their windows and doors in hurricane zones every year. Why can't they do the same when a fire is possible/imminent? Building a nice home and having to rebuild because they're too stupid to plan for fire makes no sense. "Oh, well, it was just a house" is completely wasteful. "Once interior temps reach the kindling point a fire will start inside, pretty much regardless of the framing material. Steel framing might increase the time required for this to happen by 5-10 minutes, which may be significant in a few cases, but probably not very many. Doors and especially windows are a much bigger concern."Insulate like it will be engulfed in fire. Use materials that don't burn. Nothing is either completely water or fire proof. Eventually, the material will be affected. If a wall is built is a way that it takes an extremely long time for the temperature to pass through, it's likely that help will come before anything on the inside burns or scorches. Fire brick can be used in walls where the homeowner is just too unwilling to remove trees and vegetation. "On the other hand, if exterior trim or siding is scorched or otherwise damaged, it's no big deal. The important thing is that it not contribute to the loss of the structure."Kind of goes along with my recommendation to use non-combustible materials, doesn't it? People know fires are common in many parts of the country. Even if they aren't common, if there's a chance of a forest/grass fire, it's a good idea to think ahead. "What happens if?" is something more people should consider in this and most other aspects of life, but they don't. They want disaster aid when they should have built intelligently. Most of the recent large fires were started by people, with tremendous loss of forests, homes and lives. The human factor is the only thing that can't be designed for. The Tahoe fire- illegal campfire. Riverside, CA- arson. Show-Low/Chedesky, AZ fires in '02- each set by people. 645K acres burned in those two, and they met somewhere in the middle. Absolute stupidity. "I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Edited 6/30/2007 5:21 pm by highfigh
""People cover their windows and doors in hurricane zones every year. Why can't they do the same when a fire is possible/imminent?"" This used to be standard procedure in cities many years back . Take a close look at old building in a downtown area(circa 1900 and older)and you will see either Fire shutters or the pins that were the hinge points sticking out of the masonry walls. Amazing what we forget about things and why they were done."Poor is not the person who has too little, but the person who craves more."...Seneca
Intersting thread. The neighboring county here has a requirement that any dwelling over a certain size ( + 3000 sq. ft. IIRC) constructed in a forested area and further than 1/2 mile from a fire hydrant must be sprinkled and have accessible water for fire fighters."Poor is not the person who has too little, but the person who craves more."...Seneca
> must be sprinkledFaith-based fire-fighting?
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
"Faith-based fire-fighting?"Like the Firesign Theater bit about the Europeans, who came to the New World. One was an Irish priest and as they left, he said, "Oh, I almost forgot. Domini, Domini, Domini, you're all Catholic now!""I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Edited 6/30/2007 8:50 pm by highfigh
I wonder what they mean by accessible water for fire fighters?
Where I live, there is a 2 1/2" water main with ONE hydrant 2.5 miles away ( actually that one belongs to the city so its 8" main) and the other is 8 miles away (2.5").
If you put a 2 1/2" riser on it and the fire department taps into it it would collapse the line with only a 500 GPM pump. All class A pumpers are at least 750 GPM and most are 1250 GPM.
All of our rural water depts. are set up this way in this county.
I wish they would do something like that here.
Fire cistern?
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
I have a 2000 gal water tank with a 2 1/2" fire thread riser. As far as I know its the only one around here.
Problem is, my house is 2400' built with 150 year old lighter pine. I dont think its enough water at all.
It's probably enough to keep the FD supplied until the tanker gets there.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Lets hope. I've never had to put it to the test.
Simply applying a flame to something is not a very good test. The results you get do not match what happens in real fires. So, industry has developed tests whose results more accurately apply to real fire conditions. Foam is tested by lining the top of a duct with it, drawing a strong draft through the duct, and applying a big gas flame to one end. The faster the flame makes it to the other end, the higher the "score". In these tests, EVERY foam currently made immediately falls to the floor of the duct - where it burns with great vigor.You can even hear it through the brick walls of the duct. "zip ...zip ... zip." It does not matter whether the material has been treated with 'fire inhibitors' or not. If you're going to block openings, you'd be better of using almost anything else: duct seal, pieces of drywall, stuffing them with fiberglass. As for the fire department's tank trucks: they are usually filled with diesel- not water. They are there to keep the pumps running. If you don't have water available, you're SOL. Likewise, the Fire Department is NOT there to save your house. They're there to keep you from burning down the neighborhood. That's priority #1.
> As for the fire department's tank trucks: they are usually filled with diesel- not water. They are there to keep the pumps running. If you don't have water available, you're SOL.That would come as a surprise to firemen around here -- when they hook the pumper up to the tanker and diesel squirts out of the hoses.Rural firetrucks generally have an internal water tank of about 500 gallons. If they get to a substantial fire and there's no water readily available they put in a call for tankers (1000-2000 gallons). Typically each FD has one and then will call to nearby FDs for others so that they can alternate back and forth between the fire and the nearest accessible pond.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Ponds, Underground storage tanks. I do not know what hydrant capacities are in that county, nor specifically what all the requirments and thresholds for them are. I do know what I posted from a conversation with a home owner who was complaining about the impossibility to get a permit for building on his property unless he attended to those requirements."Poor is not the person who has too little, but the person who craves more."...Seneca
I spent about $2500 on my water tank and pump about 5 years ago. The local fire dept. supplied the fire thread connector for free because I coudnt locate one. That might be an option for them.
I did mine for a break on my insurance which as you can imagine is high out here. I wasnt able to put it before the meter though. All the water in my tank has been metered. If there is any way they can do that there it would be better.
Seems like capturing rainwater would make sense for this.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
Our local fire department has input into subdivision approvals. They have started asking for a dedicated 2500 imp. gal. tank and turn around for their truck 75 feet from the structure. I was against it being mandatory. If you don't mind your house burning down, I don't see why they should.
Because in most states they're required by law to fight the fire, regardless.
So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable Creature, since it enables one to find or make a Reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin
I dont want this to come off the wrong way. This is a rant, but not directed at you.
Years ago there was this kid that worked for me during the summer months. he was only 14 at the time. He worked every summer till he graduated then started full time. He was an excelent worker and became an evenj better carpenter. He went on his own after about ten years and started a successful company. We are still good friends and he is like a son to me. Now, to answer your question.
If you don't mind your house burning down
Friday morning at 4:00 AM his house caught on fire. He tried to save his wife and got third degree burns over 75% of his body. His wife died and he may not live either. Nobody ever thinks their house is going to catch fire, but the reality is they catch fire every day. The bright side is that their kids were at camp and not in the house.
I dont think a 2500 gal. tank is too much to ask for as I only paid a couple of thousand for mine witrh a pump. I dont think a turn around is necessary though because as long as they can get to the fire they can back out when it is over. I am also a volunteer fire fighter and I have driven those trucks in places you would have never thought.
I don't see why they should
When someone is trapped in a fire, firefighters will do every thing in their power to rescue them. While trying to save my friends wife one of them got burned too. Thats why they care.
Good rant, and no offense taken.
If I had prefaced my remarks with a a little more background, I don't think they would have appeared as frivolous. I am active in our local volunteer fire department. I designed their station and my wife has served as a board member.
The debate here around budgets and firefighting requirements doesn't revolve around saving lives, but reducing insurance costs. Every time anyone questions a policy they are warned about increased premiums, which to me is neither here or there, and certainly should not be the prime motivation. That's where my comment about not seeing why they should care came from.
I will go further however, and say that one of the chief weaknesses of volunteer organizations is that they are often run by people who lack the expertise to make the decisions they are expected to, and lack perspective on how much is enough. We narrowly avoided having to sprinkler all new houses and have a professional engineer certify our landscaping plans in the last go round of ideas they threw out. We already have much more onerous requirements than any surrounding districts. This in an area with no history of wildfires, and perhaps more significantly, where despite the tanks and turnarounds, the department has never managed to save a burning structure anyway.
After spending a good 15 years working with various volunteer organizations, I have concluded that people have the same variety of motivations, both good and bad, that they display in the rest of their lives, and that is unwise not to be aware of this simply because they are donating their time.
I do agree with you that the fire dept has no business telling us how to build our houses. That is what the building code is for. Even someone like me who fights fire and builds houses has no business telling someone how. I never was an advocate of res. sprinklers. They are often more trouble than they are worth.
BTW they are starting to talk about ISO stuff here. But it will be a while before any of it gets started. I do know that in our area the FD will be implementing their own insurance ISO requirments and not anyone elses (so far).
With the prices of everything as high as they are now, one would think that reducing the rate of your insurance would be important. If the firefighters in your area are unskilled in putting out fires, seems someone would take an active role in getting them more training to fight the fires. Free training is offered all over and if it is not free, it can be taken fairly cheap. I am a firefighter and an EMT and I take peoples lifes as well as their property extremely serious.
Edited 7/1/2007 9:13 pm ET by ladyfire
Our district has an adult population of under 200 people. Most are not here during the day and many are seniors, meaning all the training in the world won't help much. The area bordering our district is without fire protection and comparable houses there pay about $150 more a year in premiums.
No one outside the area complains if their house burns down and nobody responds. It is one of the recognized risks you take when you move to a remote area. Similarly, we are an hour from the nearest hospital, so... careful with the chainsaw huh?
You will forgive me if I venture that here in B.C. logging, fishing and construction have higher rates of injury and death than firefighting. I don't think that any profession can make exclusive claim to the moral high ground around these issues.
I see. That would freak me out to some extent. Guess it's not feasably possible to protect every area. Never been there, so I don't know the terrain. Sorry about that. I should not have spoke without knowing this first.
Oh it's different out here alright. But mostly in a good way.
update: The guy in the fire did end up dying too. Left behind 3 children. Sad, he was only 33yo.My brain + his brawn = a perfect team
"Amazing what we forget about things and why they were done."I'm not sure these were forgotten, at first. My guess is that the people designing them decided that the shutters detracted from their piece of "art" and omitted them. After a few years or decades, yes, they were forgotten."If we don't learn from history....". Completely true.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Ah..... this has been a very good thread, no, make that one of the best considering the amount of information conveyed. While not everyone agrees with everyone else, it's been cival. Pretty much everybody makes a misstatement now and again. To attack them with such a tone is uncalled for.
I agree with you, the tankers transport water ( though some FDs might have a fuel truck). I noticed the error right off the bat, but didn't bother to chime in.
Now my 2 cents;
Some one said that FDs shouldn't be imposing regs. on homes, that is what building codes are for. I think yer right, but yer wrong. What you maybe were thinking is who should "enforce" regs. FDs have tons of input into codes but not a lot of enforcement authority. Ever hear of the NFPA? National Fire Protection Association. They actually write the electric, sprinkler and several other codes.
fire is ugly
Your right, I shoudnt have posted that but being a firefighter myself I take offense to someone spouting off things they dont know about as if they were fact.
Message deleted.
And yes I do know what the NFPA is. I live by the NFPA when I'm in a FD capacity. I've been trained and certified by NFPA standards. But, the NPA is not a fire department. Most people who work there are engineers trained in building construction for the fire service.
Whereas firefighters only need a 16 hour (actual hours not credits) class in building construction. Thats where the difference is. The first 8 hours of this class is going over the types of construction ie., wood, brick, block, so on.
I do beleive a FD should have input on a subdivision so they can lay out their indivdual needs ie, how many hydrants needed, necesarry egress, and so on, but not on the code. That is the engineers job.
Let's see if I read you right. You should be able to build any type of fire trap that the code allows and, of course, the fire department personnel should risk their lives to save whatever you have constructed when giving absolutely no thought to the consequences of a fire?
Sorry, I can't agree. We expect fire fighters to risk their lives to save property, so we should give them some direct say in what they are going to have to save - within reasonable limits, of course.
I was a fire protection engineer for a major industrial fire insurance organization. The insurance organization certainly had a lot of say in what went into the property they insured. They generally insisted on sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers which were inspected regularly, fire doors, and may other safety features. I see no reasons for fire departments not to do the same.
For a website describing some fires with insulating rigid foam see:http://www.monolithic.com/foam/fire_hazard/index.htmlBoth polyurethane and polystyrene are considered flammable. Polyurethane seems to release more toxins. The following is on the flammability of expanded polystyrene as copied from a manufacturers website at http://www.huntsman.com/polymers/Media/TEC_I_011.pdf
The website gives more information on toxicity of combustion products.I. FLAMMABILITY
Raw expandable polystyrene resin, expanded polystyrene pre-puff, and expanded polystyrene molded products must be considered combustible when directly exposed to fire of sufficient intensity and heat. Therefore, they should not be stored or installed near open flame or ignition sources.
The modified grades of expandable polystyrene contain flame-retardants designed to decrease flammability due to accidental ignition from a small flame source. The expanded polystyrene molded from these resins have been tested in numerous small scale fire tests and meet the
requirements of the nation’s building codes and applicable industrial, federal, and state requirements.
THE RESULTS OF THESE TESTS ARE NOT INTENDED TO REFLECT HAZARDS UNDER
ACTUAL FIRE CONDITIONSFlammability CharacteristicsRecommended Maximum Use Temperature: 165ºF (75ºC)
Melting Point: As a thermoplastic, polystyrene does not exhibit a true melting point. It will begin to soften at about 212ºF (100ºC) and, as more heat is applied, melting occurs.Flash Ignition Temperature*: The lowest initial temperature of air passing around a molded sample of EPS at which a sufficient amount of combustible gas is evolved to be ignited (ASTM D 1929). 698ºF (370ºC)Self Ignition Temperature*: The lowest initial temperature of
air passing around the specimen at which, in the absence
of an ignition source, the self-heating properties of the EPS lead
to ignition or ignition occurs of itself. (ASTM D1929) 752ºF (400ºC)Potential Heat of Building Materials ** A property-type
measurement of the heat that could be potentially released 17,293 BTU
Grade 40 from building materials when exposed to high heat
exposure of 1382ºF (750ºC). (NFPA –259) 17,269 BTU Grade 54
Being a fire protection engineer, you can relate that firefighters are taught how to put out fires. You can become a certified fireman in one year. 6 months in the academy and 6 months in EMT school.
This schooling doees not qualify the average firefighter to make those decisions.
You on the other hand went to school a lot longer than that to become an engineer.
Sorry, I can't agree. We expect fire fighters to risk their lives to save property, so we should give them some direct say in what they are going to have to save - within reasonable limits, of course.
Sorry, I can't agree. First and formost firefighters are to protect lives and a very distant (but also very important) second is to protect property. Ain't no firemans life worth any building. But every fireman I know would damm near die to help aid a someone involved in a fire, and a lot of them have died because of that philosphy.
I do agree with you that they need to have input, just disagree on what they are protecting. Just look at sprinklers... Real good on saving lives, only a sort of good on protecting structures.
.
An engineer for an insurance company ... hmmm ... time to review "Civics 101." Insurance policies are contracts. As such, you are no more required (in general) to have any insurance, let alone deal with any particular firm. In a similar manner, no firm is required to sell you insurance. In our way of doing business, folks may do business with whomever they choose, for whatever reasons they prefer. We rely upon the 'invisible hand' of the market to keep things in check. Government, however, is another creature altogether. We hold it self-evident, that the government is accountable to the people - not the other way around. The purpose of our sundry Constitutions and Charters to define and limit government ... not the governed.
To that end, we say government is only allowed to affect a person when the welfare of the rest is at stake. Other restrictions we place upon government include:
- No making rules after the fact;
- No imposing of rules without the participation of, and approval by, representatives of the general population;
- No inspections (searches) without good reason;
- Judicial review;
- A separation of governmental functions (as opposed to a 'tier' of subsidiary bodies); and, not to be undervalued,
- The right of 'private property.' THOSE are the reasons governments can NOT behave as insurance companies may. In short, government and insurance are entirely different fields ... and one ought not expect the methods of one to apply to the other.
It occurs to me that simply using gypsum sheathing would probably improve fire resitance significantly in an otherwise conventional structure.
(Would still need to deal with eaves and roof, though.)
Dan,
Back when I was doing a lot of very rural customs we tried hard to convince owners to use 5/8 rock and solid core doors though out the dwelling just for that reason. Costs were slightly more but insurance gave a break for the fire protection.
Same applied to using metal roofs in this area."Poor is not the person who has too little, but the person who craves more."...Seneca
I think it boils down to expected threats and how to plan for them.For example, if I were silly enough to build a house in a CA Canyon that has a history of firestorms every 20 years or so, then that house better be as tough as possible re: fires. That means having fire shutters ready to deploy over windows, burn-proof exterior, and little to no vegetation that can fall onto the house. Earthship-like homes with little in terms of exposed masonary, etc. may be the best bet under those circumstances. The dirt packed above makes for a great insulator, and won't burn either. If you have stone exterior walls, they're unlikely to burn also. Proper vegetation choices (i.e. plant local stuff, not do try to recreate a golf course in scotland in the middle of the desert) is really important also, along with proper clearance around the structure.One product I have not seen mentioned here is Airkrete, which is a pretty good choice for areas where fire hazards are expected. Its insulative properties are close to Icynene but it cannot burn. A concrete structure with 6" of aircrete and a stucco exterior would put the mass where it does the most good and yet be pretty bullet-proof.I am also a firm believer in sprinklers for wooden houses, since in this neck of the woods the odds are that the fire threat(s) will originate on the inside, not the outside.Homes that are built in other areas with different threats have to be adjusted for them. Note the stilt homes in areas prone to flooding, the tornado-proof homes that cloudhidden has built, etc. After all, we cannot be expected to build a home that is "everything-proof" yet affordable, livable, etc. So we concentrate on what experience tells us will be a likely issue. I'm still considering buying a large chainsaw ... for the express purpose of clearing any potential trees that could fall onto the house during a windstorm/hurricane/whatever. Several things hold me back, including the prospect of having gasoline on site, the long-term storage thereof, and ensuring that the chainsaw will start when I need it to. Another topic for a rainy day...
Edited 7/5/2007 10:21 am ET by Constantin
I read in the Homes section of the English Sunday Times they have mandated fire rated doors be installed on bedrooms facing halls used for exits within houses. This applies to all renovations and means, in many instances, the removal of beautiful antique wooden doors. Evidently an industry is springing up to provide coatings to increase the rating of old doors.
I can't imagine any 'coating' that would give any real fire protection, that didn't look a lot like and inch of plaster. There's no easy way of telling what they mean by 'fire door.' A solid wood door could very possibly qualify as a 20 minute door- assuming the mounting hardware, frame. and latch were up to the task.
There's no easy way of telling what they mean by 'fire door.'
My interior doors all have an Underwriters Laboratories metal plaque: "3/4 hr, minimum latch throw 1/2 inch."PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Yup ... the UL Label is definitely a good guide. UL is an American firm, testing to American standards. I have no idea what the expectations are in Britain.
Even assuming there is some sort of testing protocol, there is the matter of time. As in your example, the UL Label states a time frame; I've seen figures from 20 minutes to 4 hours. Again, referring to the earlier post, I cannot imagine any coating making a significant difference in the fire rating of a door- let alone a coating that would let you keep your nice wood finish on both sides.
Solid wood, on the other hand, could very well meet some existing standards. Which bring up my #1 media peeve: their reporting is often filled with sizzle, and lacking steak. We are left with a "news" item that leaves all to your imagination, and is completely lacking in any facts.