Hacker News Reader

Comment by RyanCavanaugh | Hacker News Reader

We've more than compensated for this in other building materials, processes, and codes. Your odds of dying in a house fire are far lower than they were even in the 1970's, let alone the 50's or 20's.

View on HN

That's probably more because of smoke detectors (and perhaps fewer smokers) than anything else. I'd love to get a sprinkler system retro-fit though, as that would make an impressive difference.

All the lighter-weight joists made with OSB burn far faster than the 2x8s or whatever they replaced, and home furnishings are made with large amounts of flammable synthetics.

At a live-fire course I was on, the scenarios we worked on were fueled by stacks of wooden pallents, lit by an instructor's tiger torch. One of the instructors asked us if we knew the fuel equivalent of a typical love seat with synthetic foam, in pallets. We all figured it was lots, but not the real answer: NINETY.

They've done the research and, well, the newer houses really are just better at having fewer fire deaths. I suppose it's possible the fires that do occur are worse, but on net your death rate is lower in a newer house.

https://www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/advocacy/docs/top-prioriti...

> As expected, the coefficient estimate for the percentage of houses built after 1989 (pctpost89) is negative and statistically significant. This implies that, in counties with newer housing stock, all else equal, the fire death rate is lower. Interestingly, when identical regressions to model 1 were run using different cutoff points for new stock, such as the percentage of houses built after 1979 or 1969 or 1959, the coefficients were of roughly similar size, were always negative, and the associated t-statistics were at least as significant.

Interesting paper, thanks. It does make some of the same distinctions I did, around smokers and smoke alarms. Another thing mentioned about newer construction is the improved blocking and stopping. For example, one old style of framing was "balloon frame" construction, where you would have gaps that might run vertically from basement to attic. That gave fire a channel to rip vertically through a structure, and is clearly a terrifying idea once it catches. [Edit] Oh, I forgot to mention, it also discusses what conclusions can't be inferred. "Regrettably, much of the available data is not helpful. For example, no data are collected on the age of the structure where a house fire death occurs, despite the obvious link between the two."

The starting point of this though, was the idea that the materials in the house are actually better than in the past. To the extent that they'll tolerate fire longer before collapsing, they aren't, and the gases from the foam cushions, carpets and drapes are more toxic than ever. The reason this was drilled into our heads is that it means less time to get into a fire, and someone out, before we all have to leave for our own safety.

> Your odds of dying in a house fire are far lower than they were even in the 1970's, let alone the 50's or 20's.

I am very surprised by this.

I'm sure that building codes ensure that the actual houses are more fire resistant. And fire fighting has probably come a long way.

But the typical home is full of processed plastic fabric. Which burns a whole heck of a lot faster than either cotton or wool. Carpet, curtains, clothes, furniture, etc.

I am sure smoke alarms make a big difference and people not smoking. Circuit breakers instead of fuses. Plus all the for fire exits and fire doors in apartment blocks.

Perhaps, but I'm not sure I live swimming through an invisible ocean of fire retardant chemicals that are in all home furnishings and most clothing and so forth. I'm not exactly a California Prop 65 fan, but I do wonder if those are anything any sane person wants near them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com