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.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed