I just watched the MythBusters episode where they test if the doorframe is the safest place to be during an earthquake. They concluded that while that was true for old-style masonry buildings which don't adhere to current US Building Code (since the doorframe was usually reinforced with rebar), it actually wasn't the safest place to be in an all-wood house built to code*; instead, the "drop, cover, and hold on" tactic of getting beneath a sturdy desk or table is preferable.Cost. Not neccesarily for the owner.
* Their "excuse" about it not being safe was that the mannekin mounted in the doorframe kept on getting "spanked" by the door swinging back and forth, and eventually fell over. Please.
But fine, whatever - the issue I want to bring up is entirely different. I understood from that episode that US Building Code mandates homes be constructed out of wood, not masonry, to... better withstand earthquakes (? Perhaps other reasons as well?), right? Ok, so let's see how many people have died in US earthquakes over the years (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/us_deaths.php). Going back to 1812, we have a grand total of 4,032 deaths in 46 quakes over 202 years (mostly in California, too - yikes!).
So wooden homes withstand earthquakes far better than masonry, as MythBusters confirmed beyond any doubt. However, do you see the glaring problem with this concept yet?
Wood catches fire. Masonry doesn't catch fire. Hmm.... how many deaths in the US are due to house fires over the years (http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fires-by-property-type/residential/home-fires)? Well, the data I found only goes back to 1977, not 1812, so take that into consideration when I reveal that in the mere 36 years the table covers, there have been over 140 THOUSAND deaths from house fires. :eek2:
Ok, so your turn: please explain to me the logic in mandating that homes be built from flammable wood instead of fire-proof masonry.
By contrast, in Europe I hear the only way to tell the difference between a building that's 10 and one that's 1000 years old is how big of a crap clogs up the plumbing. Maybe someone here can confirm that?Idk for the rest of europe, i can tell you croatia for example is not like that. While i was in ireland 3 years ago however, it seemed to be so. the house i was housed in had this horrible thing where the plumbing from the toilets goes on the outside of the walls which kinda horrifies me. Even on new houses... I have no clue why this is so. Supposedly because they dont get freezing temps much...
I just watched the MythBusters episode where they test if the doorframe is the safest place to be during an earthquake. They concluded that while that was true for old-style masonry buildings which don't adhere to current US Building Code (since the doorframe was usually reinforced with rebar), it actually wasn't the safest place to be in an all-wood house built to code*; instead, the "drop, cover, and hold on" tactic of getting beneath a sturdy desk or table is preferable.
I wonder how much of the "wood is plentiful and inexpensive" reason is due to it being the primary building material. Of course it's cheap - there's a tremendous amount of infrastructure dedicated towards making sure that it is cheap to harvest, process, and transport.
I wonder if it's more about demolishing and less harmful debris from severe storms like a hurricane? Not that a 6' x 6' x 8' beam of wood traveling at 120mph isn't dangerous...
I wonder how much of the "wood is plentiful and inexpensive" reason is due to it being the primary building material. Of course it's cheap - there's a tremendous amount of infrastructure dedicated towards making sure that it is cheap to harvest, process, and transport.
On the issue of building codes and durability, there's also the matter of location. Homes built in the southern US are much less sturdy in build quality than their comparators as you move north. Part of the reason why many of those areas are devastated by natural disasters is that the structures themselves are less solidly built because they rarely need to withstand serious elements. That said, central America uses a lot of masonry/block construction, and storms hit them way harder than the southern US; the structures are built of solid materials, but they're flimsily constructed.
Ok, so I can get the whole "wood is plentiful" argument, but seriously? Stone is just as plentiful, somewhat less useful than wood is in its pre-harvested state (bedrock vs trees), and vastly more fire-resistant. That's what this thread is about, remember - the fire susceptibility of wooden houses and the hundreds of thousands of deaths they have caused.Just as plentiful (in a sense: again, huge forests are all over the damn place in North America), but far more labor-intensive to actually obtain, substantially heavier and thus more costly to transport, and requiring of much more construction skill to properly build with. And while fire resistance is a concern, unless you're living in a literal castle or a concrete slab, the interior of your stone house is still going to contain a good deal of wood and drywall and what have you. Every night on the local news I see video of row home fires in Philadelphia, and those are all primarily brick construction. Plus, given very basic safety precautions, house fires should not be fatal events I haven't looked up any data on it, but just based on news reports, the vast majority of house fire fatalities seem to occur when there aren't functioning smoke detectors in the residence.
I just watched the MythBusters episode where they test if the doorframe is the safest place to be during an earthquake. They concluded that while that was true for old-style masonry buildings which don't adhere to current US Building Code (since the doorframe was usually reinforced with rebar), it actually wasn't the safest place to be in an all-wood house built to code*; instead, the "drop, cover, and hold on" tactic of getting beneath a sturdy desk or table is preferable.
* Their "excuse" about it not being safe was that the mannekin mounted in the doorframe kept on getting "spanked" by the door swinging back and forth, and eventually fell over. Please.
But fine, whatever - the issue I want to bring up is entirely different. I understood from that episode that US Building Code mandates homes be constructed out of wood, not masonry, to... better withstand earthquakes (? Perhaps other reasons as well?), right? Ok, so let's see how many people have died in US earthquakes over the years (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/us_deaths.php). Going back to 1812, we have a grand total of 4,032 deaths in 46 quakes over 202 years (mostly in California, too - yikes!).
So wooden homes withstand earthquakes far better than masonry, as MythBusters confirmed beyond any doubt. However, do you see the glaring problem with this concept yet?
Wood catches fire. Masonry doesn't catch fire. Hmm.... how many deaths in the US are due to house fires over the years (http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fires-by-property-type/residential/home-fires)? Well, the data I found only goes back to 1977, not 1812, so take that into consideration when I reveal that in the mere 36 years the table covers, there have been over 140 THOUSAND deaths from house fires. :eek2:
Ok, so your turn: please explain to me the logic in mandating that homes be built from flammable wood instead of fire-proof masonry.
Can you post a link to the "US Building Code" you're referring to? I can't find it and I have a hunch that it doesn't exist.
And the other 49 states? Obviously building codes exist in the US but there's no reason for the federal government to need to regulate construction like this, and "US Building Code" sounds like some ludicrous straw man made up because you're too lazy to do any real research before you start criticizing.
I'm sorry, did I (or anyone else, for that matter) attack you personally or something? Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? What's with the vitriol? Reel it in. I saw an episode of what I gather most people consider to be a fairly reliable, factual source of information, and came to ask my friends here in the community if there was an explanation for the potential flaw I noticed. I didn't start calling people names, nor did I claim that I had done extensive research.
If you have an issue with simple questions such as these, I suggest you take your issues elsewhere.
I'm American myself, I can bash us anytime I want! :p
More seriously though, I'm really just trying to find out why the decision was made to make most homes in the US out of flammable wood vs something else, and if anyone had ever officially taken a look at the death tolls from home fires and given serious thought to tossing out wood. Just amazement-fueled curiosity, really.
By the way, US fire statistics...
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/#tab-1
In one single year (2003), the US had almost as many fire-related deaths (3,925) as it had earthquake deaths for the past 200+ years (4,032).
Economics or not, that just doesn't make sense to me.
By the way, US fire statistics...
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/data/statistics/#tab-1
Exactly. In one single year (2003), the US had almost as many fire-related deaths (3,925) as it had earthquake deaths for the past 200+ years (4,032).
Economics or not, that just doesn't make sense to me.
Exactly. In one single year (2003), the US had almost as many fire-related deaths (3,925) as it had earthquake deaths for the past 200+ years (4,032).
Economics or not, that just doesn't make sense to me.
I mean, even just closing a wooden door would delay a fire entering a room in a wooden house by a minute or more; usually more than enough time to allow escape out a window in most rooms.By code, fire-rated doors are rated for at least 20 minutes. Yes, there are wooden fire-rated doors.