In the first three months of 2014, 51 Pennsylvania residents died due to fire. That number is among the highest in the nation during that time and reflects the very real danger Pennsylvanians face when it comes to fire safety. Fire does not discriminate; it can strike anytime in any type of home.
There were 909 civilian fatalities due to fire in the United States between Jan. 1 and April 1 and 33 firefighter fatalities. In 2012, the latest year for which we have official data, property loss was estimated at $9.8 billion in structure fires alone.
Despite this, states including Pennsylvania still resist the concept of mandating residential fire sprinkler systems in newly constructed one- and two-family homes and rely solely on smoke alarms for safety.
While working smoke alarms are an effective way to alert residents to a fire, they require residents to take action and don't prevent the spread of fire. Our most vulnerable citizens — children, the elderly and the disabled — may not be able to respond to alarms like others. Fire sprinklers are the only form of proactive fire protection and can protect lives and property by immediately reacting, controlling and even extinguishing a fire.
We urge all citizens to check the batteries in their smoke alarms, educate themselves on current fire protection requirements in their cities and states and learn how to protect themselves and their loved ones from the dangers of fire.
The writer is the president of the National Fire Sprinkler Association.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- PETA & its tactics I
- New Kensington block party thanks
- PETA & its tactics II
- Uncaring toward soldiers
- Biased? Guilty as charged
- Bad cartoon
- Being a volunteer firefighter
- Cockpit safety stalled
- Corbett better choice
- Seeking Christ in kids
- More than one hero