Beware the publicity hack, part 2

We were talking yesterday about how public relations people try to steer the coverage of a controversial topic in a different direction when it’s not going their way. Carri Schmidt of the National Home Builders Association (NAHB) issued a public statement the other day that illustrates this.

The topic was the extensive use of “lightweight construction” methods on most new housing these days. She responded by saying, “Homes are, in fact, significantly safer today than 20 years ago because of advances in technology and changes in building codes.” We dissembled that statement yesterday. She also directed us to two references that are supposed to be supporting the NAHB’s stance on this current practice of flimsy construction. One is the NIOSH Publication No. 2005-132: Preventing Injuries and Deaths of Fire Fighters Due to Truss System Failures. But it turns out that the paper actually supports what we have been saying.

This morning I’d like to comment on NAHB’s other suggested reference, their own web page dedicated to smoke detectors called Smoke Alarms Work (http://www.smokealarmswork.org/).  It leads off with this statement: In 1960, 7,645 Americans died as the result of fires. By 2001, the total had dropped 56 percent to 3,326 in 2001. Now whenever I see somebody using an arbitrary set of beginning and ending dates to use as an example, I automatically wonder why they chose those particular dates? What happened in 1960 that caused them to choose that as a starting point?

But it doesn’t really matter in our case because, once again, that’s not what we’re talking about. We are concerned with a) firefighter safety, and b) rapid fire spread coupled with increased property loss because of it. I would like to point out one more thing about that previous statement that tends to skew the argument. The claim ends with the words died as the result of fires. Notice the absence of the word “house” in there. It’s including all kinds of fires. I would also add that in the mid-1980’s the newly-created U. S. Fire Administration stopped classifying deaths in automobile fires that had resulted from crashes as “fire deaths” and there was an immediate drop in fire death numbers.

But all that really doesn’t matter because the NAHB is using this website to convince us that building construction is better now than it was 20 years ago. But it turns out that this website is apparently a vehicle to dissuade governing agencies from requiring home sprinkler systems. The site begins with how good smoke alarms are, and how some home building methods have improved, such as circuit breaker boxes instead of fuse boxes (and I have no argument with those claims), they devote an entire section to what they call Facts About Fire Sprinklers.

Now I will remind you again ….. our concern is what happens AFTER the fire starts. Smoke detectors save lives by alerting you in time to get out. But there has never been a smoke detector that has put out a fire. Now back to their fire sprinkler fact sheet. They make the statement: No matter if there are sprinklers in a home, should a fire be reported, the fire department will send the same number of responders. There is no fiscal advantage or cost benefit to the individual or the community by mandating fire sprinklers. You got that? There is no fiscal advantage to having the fire extinguished immediately in the room where it started as opposed to having the entire house burn down. Gimme a break.

Here’s another one: Poorer, less educated Americans are more likely to live in substandard housing than wealthier, educated Americans. It’s more likely that a wealthier person will be in a position to buy a new home. That means that residential fire sprinklers, usually mandated in wealthier communities where their cost is less of a barrier, are least likely to protect those who could benefit by them the most. So let’s not start.

This report is full of jewels like: Having sprinklers is also no guarantee that fire fighters will not turn on their hoses. Claims that less damage will be caused by a sprinkler than a fire hose are unsubstantiated. Here’s the link to that section: http://www.smokealarmswork.org/firesprinklers/index.html. Find your favorites, there are plenty more.

Now you see, they have successfully diverted my attention away from the primary issue that is facing us: Rapid, catastrophic fire spread and firefighter safety. I’m bringing this out to show you what is going to happen once the debate gets out into the public arena. And don’t expect many politicians to be on our side. Our campaign contributions can’t match the builders’. Don’t get steered away from the issue!

Ok, enough for today’s rant. Let’s get the equipment checked out. I’ll start up the coffee pot.

Beware the publicity hack.

The Fire & Rescue service got a little bit of a break yesterday.  Through some persistent efforts by Dave Statter and WUSA, coupled with a recent house fire in their own area, the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) have opened the door to public discussion about modern “lightweight construction” methods.

[photopress:plyfloor_c.jpg,full,centered]

For years, we have been complaining loudly about the cheap methods of throwing up homes that came into full practice about 20 years ago.  Initially it included those plywood floor joists, chipwood and glue sheathing, and lightweight trusses held together with gusset plates.  They have continually been degrading their construction practices by using more flimsy materials such as vinyl siding and close-clearance chimneys.

Now, when a fire begins in a home, the time span between ignition and total-involvement has been shortened tremendously…. to a few minutes, in many cases.

The NAHB and other groups that represent the home building industry have largely run from the spotlight and hidden behind the cloak of “code compliance” claiming that they are duly following the approved practices.  And that’s true.  But…. it’s the approved practices that are the direct cause of these catastrophic failures during what should be room-and-contents fires.  And the NAHB chooses to push that inconvenient point aside because these current practices allow them to use much cheaper materials and methods, thus inflating their profit margins.

I presume that by now you have read STATter911’s response from NAHB’s spokeswoman, Carri Schmidt.  Let’s look at what she is really saying, or not saying:

“Homes are, in fact, significantly safer today than 20 years ago because of advances in technology and changes in building codes.”  

She starts off with an old debating trick by saying that her claim is a “fact.”  No, it’s not.  If it was a “fact” then there wouldn’t be any controversy going on.  But by starting out with such a statement, an observer tends to sub-consciously think that it must be true then.

Then the next trick of the debater (and publicity hacks) is to ignore the premise if you can’t defend it and talk about something else:  The claim that homes are significantly safer can only be true if you are talking about the things in the homes, not the buildings themselves.  We don’t have tv sets bursting into flames anymore.  Furnaces are being built much better and safer now.  Gas appliances don’t have pilot lights anymore.  And so on.

We are – and have been – talking about building safety after the fire starts.  But she ignores that and insists on talking about building safety before it starts.  And to keep the debate focused on something other than firefighter safety, she threw out some links to reference sources.  Again, this is another debating stunt that relies on people accepting your word on face value and hoping that they don’t actually check out your references.  But Firegeezer did. 

Here’s one statement from one of her references:  Engineered building components may provide adequate strength under normal loading; but under fire conditions, these truss systems can become weakened and fail, leading to the collapse of roofs, floors, and possibly the entire structure.

[photopress:plyfloor_b.jpg,full,centered]

That’s exactly what we’ve been saying.  And the NAHB is using this as a rebuttal?  We will get into this phase of the discussion some more tomorrow.

But now it’s time to get this equipment checked out.  I’m going to get the (much safer, these days) coffee maker started.

This is one of those mornings where I’m having trouble getting all the body parts to function in a coordinated manner.  I think you know what I mean.  If I have an idea of what I want to do, the rest of me doesn’t quite hook up and go along with it.  As a result, my typing goes slowly because I keep misspelling the words and have to backspace over and over to do it again.  Couple that with my blurry eyes refusing to focus in on whatever I’m looking at, and you have a real clown show going on here.

I’ve never used those “spell-checker” features that are usually built into the writing programs now.  I tried one out several years ago and it was so distracting that it drove me crazy and slowed my writing down almost to a standstill.  Every time I’d type a word that wasn’t in the approved vocabulary of the computer demon, it would suddenly become underlined in red and make me stop and growl at it.  This was always the case when writing out a proper name or place and I didn’t know how to get the underlines to go away.  So I turn the bloomin’ spell-check feature off and do what I’ve always done…plug along and go back over it when I’m done.  Even then, I mess one up every now and then.  But, so what?

Of course, there are some words that, no matter how many times I write them, I still have to double-check before I set them loose.  I think everybody has a few words in their cranial databank that they have a problem remembering for sure how to spell them.  I’ve pretty well got “occasion” settled in firmly now.  (Shouldn’t there be two “s”es in there?  No… shut up.) 

 But one that will give me fits until my dying days is “bureaucracy” or “bureaucrats.”  I use those a lot in this forum, and yet I always have to double check with the Webster’s before I press the Send button.  I guess everybody has a stumbling block over a couple of words like that.  No matter how hard you try, they just won’t let you control them.

Well, while it’s understandable that you have trouble with a few words and maybe drop an apostrophe in the wrong place,  just make good and sure that you don’t forget your wife’s birthday.

All right, let’s get the equipment checked out.  I’m functioning well enough to run the coffee now.

[photopress:buckle_up_1_2_3_4_5_6_7_8_9_10_11_12_13_14_15_16.jpg,full,alignleft]