Search
Who's online
There are currently 1 user and 8 guests online.
Online users
Recent user registrations
Registered Users
Firefighting/protection
Thu, 06/05/2008 - 20:22 — Carl Pålsson
If this has been up already I blame the forums´ lack of a search function.
- I don´t have any fantastic ideas myself so I welcome suggestions and random speculation.
- What kind of equipment is neccessary? Required? Fixed installations? Sprinklers? Personal firefighting gear?
- How does the shape, design, location, materials or any other aspect of the seastead (with no particular type in mind) change the fire hazards and the firefighting possibilites?
- Etc etc. Go nuts.
Plenty of fire extinguishers
Plenty of fire extinguishers at the ready will be a given. If the structures are of concrete or metal perhaps sealing halls with metal doors every so often could contain the spread.
Of course that would mean building codes and the book seems to shy on those things as being evil and anti-capitalist. Who knows, I'd rather know certain standard were upheld to keep me from being roasted alive. But I am weird like that.
Yeah, me too.
Being a boat captain and having taken marine firefighting training enables me to appreciate such things as casuality-driven codes and standards. Even flags of convienence require classing. Classing is approval by an international class society like ABS DNV, Lloyds of London, etc. Without classing, you don't get a flag or insurance coverage, without insurance coverage you don't get investment. The bottom line is no standards- no seastead.
And of course this is no brainer stuff. It's all been done before and there's a zillion engineers and NA's with all the books necessary.
Building codes arnt any
Building codes arnt any capitalist: government enforced building codes are.
That said, i would hold my own seastead, and the steads that want to link up to me, to what i consider to be sensible building practice. And id recommend anyone to do the same.
Systemic and economic causes
Many current day regulations arise as contract clauses for insurances. For example, you can't insure a building against fire if you don't put a normalized number and type of fire extinguishers inside it, and don't keep those up to date. These are purely capitalist regulations. Insurances usually also cover risks to third-parties (which explains the mandatory security rails, emergency exits and the like). These regulations are useful because they are born out of economic necessity coupled to the respect of others' rights (you are liable to the harm your stuff causes to others).
On the other hand, the "color codes for window shutters" sort of regulation arises simply because the capacity to enforce it exists through municipal concentration of power, which creates an incentive for anyone to lobby it in their own favor (in favor of their own taste, I'd say) since the cost of its enforcement is externalized: few dishonest people resist the temptation to be served by an eager master at the expense of others. These regulations are useless because they are born out of economic distortion coupled to the violation of isonomy (the more powerful lobby gets to dictate the rules to all others).
Good evaluation of codes
I agree they aren't nanny-state, but capitalist-driven.
But so are "color codes for window shutters". I live in a HOA governed community. The purpose is to preserve asset value. My neighbor is not permitted to paint his house lime green with orange trim because it would lower my property value. He also can't open a motorcycle service shop or XXX theatre. I like it here having lived in places where there was more "freedom".
The only difference is being
The only difference is being able to pick and choose which standards are aplicable and which are not. There are plenty of safety and environmental regulations which are neither safe, nor environmentally friendly: politicians enact rules in response to pressure, not science. there are also plenty that are pure nanny-statism at its worst, protecting you from yourself. On the other hand, that's what lobbyist groups are there for- to influence the legislative process in a way that makes sense for industry.
You can choose
by which flag or class society you choose. Some are slighty more lenient than others but overall, they pretty much copy others and cite existing standards. For instance the USCG standards (CFR46 I think) frequently cite NFPA codes. In general, politicians are removed from rule making. It's done by administrative agencies. It is "a statutory creation within the executive branch with the power to make, interpret, and enforce laws" (Jennings, Business 7th edition, 2006). Essentially we use subject matter experts to create and administer technically oriented rules/laws.
There may be political influence in the process at times, but my personal experience with the USCG would indicate that it's not much. I've worked with teh USCG on a number of boat inspection/building projects. I haven't found the regs or inspectors to be anything but sensible. Cost is secondary to safety, but it is still considered heavily. Most of the rules or regs applicable to a seastead would be casualty driven. When an administrative agency makes a rule, it has to have a comment period and consider comments. Rules can be challenged (very often successfully) if they are "arbitrary and capricious", or if they are "unsupported by substantial evidence", if it's unconstitutional, or beyond the powers of the agency. The end result is American shipping is the safest on the planet. I don't think it's too safe. The rest of the world is rising to our standards as the value of life is recognized.
Safety Standards
Adhering to as many applicable safety standards as possible is a "no-brainer" and is high on the seastead requirements list. Anytime you build something new for a harsh environment like the ocean, there is a possibility that somebody could get hurt or killed. By building to the highest available standards, hopefully we can minimize the number and frequency of accidents.
I havnt really thought about
I havnt really thought about this much.
In any case, the spar is worry-free. All we need to think about is the living space built on top of it.
We can simple reuse conventional wisdom to a certain extent: sprinklers, flame retarding materials, easy evacuation.
But perhaps there is more we need to do: after all, dedicated firefighting services will not be available initially, when the amount of seasteaders is still small.
That said, fire isnt really the hazard it used to be when using modern technology and standards, and nobody ever said pioneering was going to be without risks. It certainly seems like one of the lesser ones to me.
Spar Fire
While the spar itself may not be particularly flamable, the contents may be quite flamable. In addition, ventilation can be an issue. Some flamable gases are heavier than air and will collect at the bottom of the spar; they could ignite and explode.
Most of these issues have been figured out after several centuries of building sea going boats. That is why we want to capitalize on whatever safety regulations that have been authored for boats (within reasonable applicability.)
An open spar will not have
An open spar will not have any flamable parts, and a closed one should consist of many sealable compartments, right? Leaving a compartment and closing it off should take care of any fire pretty easily.
I agree, we shouldnt reinvent the wheel if it isnt necessary: and i dont think it will be, with regard to fire safety.
It's not that anyone is
It's not that anyone is against safety (who could be against "safety"), but rather that we see a LOT of regulation on land about safety and environmental protection which either don't make sense, don't help, or actively harm.
Marine codes may be more sensible. I don't have the experience to judge yet. The point is that a rational individual can choose the level of safety versus expense, and take their own risks. I would be more than happy to build to a standard that I am convinced is experience-driven, rather than politically-driven.