Conference 7.286::home_work

< Note 2420.0 by TOPDOC::AHERN "Dennis the Menace" >
                          -< Recovering from a fire. >-

>    My family's summer cottage, that we've used for 50 years, was destroyed
>    in a fire last week.  Except for two rooms on the back that are mainly
>    smoke damaged, the main structure is a burnt out shell that cannot be
>    salvaged. 

    Sorry to hear about the loss, a lot of good memories went up in smoke 
with it, I'm sure. From second-hand observation, I would think about the 
following......

    My boss had a summer place up the woods of New Hampshire that was 
torched one spring about 3 years ago. After clearing the site (he only hada 
couple of trailer loads of debris to take to a dump), he arranged a 
settlement with his insurance company and then set about planning a new 
place that really looked like a small home and would fit his needs.

    Four months after the fire, he was ready with a new set of building 
plans, he had built a foundation with plywood deck and crawlspace, pre-fabs 
35 trusses for the roof, and pre-cut the studs for the wall framing. One 
Saturday then was barn raising day, complete with suitable printed nail 
aprons for everyone (22 warm bodies, some even able to identify nails for 
the apron and hammers to drive them with!). We worked from about 8 am until 
7-7:30 pm (don't remember exactly, I was too tired to pick up my arm to 
look at the watch). In that time, we had erected 4 walls, applied Tex-11 
siding, cut open windows and doorways, raised 35 trusses, and applied 
almost 1/2 the roof sheathing. The finished house was about 22 by 44 feet, 
with a scond floor that will be divided into several rooms anda first floor 
that has been divided up into several rooms and a screened in porch 
overlooking the river.

    Since the barn raising day, a lot of work was done to finish the place 
off, and it took several people who *really* knew what they were doing to 
keep things going right. But, essencially, 22 amateurs did manage to get 
the structure up without mishap and by the following Thursday he was ready 
to lock the front door and walk away from it knowing it was weathertight 
and safe.

    Total cost for the labor was about 15 cases of soda, sandwiches and a 
dinner of hamburgs and such. A real fun day that I would recommend to 
anyone willing to put in a hard days work just for the heck of it.

    As an aside, one builder brought his two movie cameras and set one up 
to run all day from a tripod at 1 frame per ssecond, thereby condensing the 
day into about 20 minutes of fast action fun. The other camera was used for 
closeups at regular speed and the two films combined are a true classic 
that is worth the whole days work. 

    So, to wrap it up, consider rebuilding it yourself, but preplan 
everything, prebuilt a lot of stuff that can be done ahead of time, and 
dont be afraid to ask everyone to come. We had a lot of guys with hammers, 
including one daughter, several wives keeping the drinks cold 
and food on the table, a couple of younger kids to make sure the swimming 
hole in the river was cool, and a couple of dogs to generally oversee the 
process and clean up the crumbs on the ground. 

    Vic H.

    Sorry to hear about your loss.  I have been in the firefighting
    field for 18 years and can only imagine how you feel.
    
    About the problems that face you.  Remembering that this is MA.
    
    The materials left from the sections that are burnt may NOT be
    acceppted at your local landfill.  Some of the materials may be
    considered "hazzardous materials" (Roof shingles, tar paper, etc.)
    Some landiflls only allow certain size (lenghts) of wood to be
    dumped.  Renting a dumpster can get expensive if it has to hauld
    other than your city/town limits or especially as mentioned above
    if it contains hazzardous materials.
    
    I would check with your local building inspector.  You will be working
    with he/she throughout this whole process for permits and the likes.
    
    One thing to remember is (if memory serves me correctly).  If the
    isurance or any inspectors deemed your placed totaled you fall
    completley under the "NEW" building codes and not under remodeling
    or additions.  This can get costly depending on the type of foundation
    and the extent of what can be salvaged.  Plumbing may have to be
    re-done throught depending on what was destroyed.  Electrical has
    the same.
    
    From past experiences, demolition can be very hard and dirty work.
    Depending on the availability of family/friends I would suggest
    that you look into a contractor for demolition.  Sometime the insurance
    will pay because of health/safety reasons.
    
    Again, I would suggest talking to the local government.  The Board
    of Health or Health Agent can be of assistance, the building,
    electrical and plumbing inspectors should be able to inform you
    of has to be done in order to accomplish your task.
    
    If you have any questions give me a call on or after this Thursday
    and I'll see if I can help.
    
    Regards,
    
    Bob Montvile
    234-4588

    Regardless of where you are located, I strongly encourage you to obtain
    the services of an architect.   Just the mere fact that you're asking
    the questions you're asking give me the uneasy feeling that you're
    uneasy.   This isn't a weekend screened-in-porch job, it's a major
    undertaking.   I encourage you to do whatever work you can do, but
    don't start from scratch *unless* you're experienced.   Nothing would
    be worse than having built the shell and find out that something you
    did on the foundation doesn't meet code. 
    
    And, I think the previous reply is right:   You're working new
    construction here.   That means working to the latest codes. But, I
    differ on the opinion of demolition:   It is probably the most
    labor-intensive job you've got ahead of yourself, and you can certainly
    handle it.   Remember, even in the Bob and Norm Show (This Old House)
    the first thing they encourage for sweat equity is demolition.   A
    dumpster and hauling permits *are* going to be expensive. 
    
    Depending on the magnitude of the work, being your own "general
    contractor" could be beneficial.   But, don't do anything without
    an architect's help.

    When I redid my roof last year I got a 20-yard dumpster.  That
    was a convenient size; it's big enough to hold a lot, but the
    sides are only about 4' high so you can pitch stuff in over them
    if you want.  I'd guess its overall dimensions were about 7'x20'x4'.
    Cost was not cheap (there's a note on dumpsters in this file
    somewhere that gives prices) but it's really the only way to go
    these days and it certainly is convenient.  You can get up to
    40-yard dumpsters, but they have sides 8' high and personally
    I think it would be easier to get a 20-yard and make two loads out
    of it.  With the 8' height I'm afraid it would be difficult to
    pile stuff up to the full height effectively, so you'd be paying
    for more space than you'd be able to use.  

    	I had a similar situation, I was in the process of building
    a house, the house was made weather-tight, and we were about to
    insulate it when at 9 pm on one saturday night, I got a phonecall
    from fire-marshall telling me that the house had a fire.
    
    I worked with the insurance company.  I hired a good contractor
    who gave a written report on the total cost - from removing
    burnt stuff to installing new stuff.   Because many things such
    as doors, and windows were new, I had the receipts, which I
    forwarded to the insurance.   Later, on the insurance paid me,
    although much less, because I found that I was under-insured.
    
    This happened last November.  I waited till April, and then I started
    planning.   I found that it will be economical to remove the major
    burnt-out portion, and start from the begining.   The bad parts
    were cut and were bull-dozed with big wrecking machine.  This 
    minimized the labor cost.  The burnt parts were put nearby, as
    I was under impression that insurance will arrange to pick it.
    I later used local person to dump it at town dump at my cost.
    I saved some windows/sashes before wrecking crew got their hands.
    
    Once, the burnt portion was removed, the reconstruction moved
    rapidly.   As I am doing my own sub-contracting, some-times it
    is time-consuming, and frustrating.  Now we are waiting for the
    plumber to finish heating, before we start insulation.
    
    Few things to comment - I used different subcontractor for framing
    as compared to the one who gave prices for insurance purpose.  This
    way, no one knows how much I was paid by insurance, and I can control
    the cost.  I got the recommendation of building inspector, so that
    he supported me and gave no hassles in ongoing inspections.

    
    
    I live in Lunenburg and my dump will no accept any building materials
    at all. I had to get a permit for the Leominster transfer station
    and was able to dump at a cost of $25 dollars per ton. They will
    give a permit to anyone from any town just as long as you pay.
    Leominster residents can dump normal stuff for free.
    
    	-Steve-
    

    Does anyone know whether things like sinks and toilets should be
    included in an inventory of lost contents for insurance purposes?
    We're in the midst of completing the list of household furnishings
    destroyed in the fire and I don't know if they are considered part
    of the building cost or part of the contents. What about the stove
    and refrigerator also?
    
    For anyone who has not yet been burned out of house and home, I
    suggest you have an inventory done ahead of time.  It's also very
    helpful to have photographs of each room from different angles.
    It's amazing how many things you overlook when they're all gone.
    
    Here's part of an .SDML file that you can use to document your
    belongings.  Use the VAX DOCUMENT report doctype.
    

<table>(Small Bedroom) 
<table_setup>(4\3\40\6)
<table_row>( \ \ \### )
<table_heads>(Qty.\Description\Cost Each\Total Cost) 
<align_char>(#)
<table_row>( 1\ Maple bed\ \### 300)
<table_row>( 1\ Box spring and mattress\ \### 120)
<table_row>( 1\ Mattress cover\ \### 15)
<table_row>( 1\ Bedspread\ \### 15)
<table_row>( 2\ Blankets\ 7\### 14)
<table_row>( 2\ Pillows\ 8\### 16)
<table_row>( \ etcetera, etcetera, etcetera\ \### )
<table_row>( \ \ \### )
<table_row>(\\Sub-total\$)
<endalign_char>
<endtable>

    

< Moderator if this is discussed elsewhere please point me in the
    appropriate direction, I have checked the notes using
    dir.title=treated>
    
    
    The question I have is that I was able to come by some lumber which
    is "Fire Treated". That is to say it is treated so as not to burn.
    Generally it's application is in vitually "wood free" buildings,
    to maintain their "overall fire rating" or something similar,
    ex: cinder brick garages, brick/concrete buildings etc...  . And
    I am wondering if it will stand up well against the elements, and
    is it safe for contact w/ the skin (as flooring on a deck). The
    wood is in standard stick lumber sizes (2x-----), and is cedar colored
    (presumably the color is due to the treatment)        
     I was hoping to build a small (9x9) deck using this lumber. If
    anyone has any info,tips,experiences w/ this please let me know.
    
                                 thanks muchly/bob

    I don't know much about this type of lumber, but I would question
    why you would want to build a deck using it.  My guess would be
    that it is more expensive than regular lumber, probably equal to
    pressure-treated, and (just a guess) not as good in the weather
    as PT.
    
    If you are using it for a deck, you wouldn't have much worry about
    fire, (with the possible exception being a bar-b-q grill).  Should
    a fire start, you have fairly ready access to your lawn hose to
    put it out before it gets going too much.
    
    These are just some thoughts for what they are worth.
    
    Ed..
    

    Oh yea , forgot to mention , the wood was free. Surplus from a 
    multimillion dollar development project. It was headed for the 
    scrap pile, or as the super said "first come first served" The
    wood is new (reads , no nails to remove etc..) so I/we helped ourselves
    The fire retardent properties came w/ the lumber ;^) 

    Now that makes a difference.  In that case, you might want to consider
    using this wood, putting down a good stain, and you should get a
    few years out of it.  I would think that if you were to keep up
    with the staining, and whatnot, that you should be able to get many
    years out of this wood.
    
    It is worth a try, especially if the wood was free.
    
    Ed..
    

I would suggest contacting the manufacturer to find out the properties of
the treatment.    You may or may not be able to treat the wood with standard
weatherproofing substances, such as Thompson's Waterseal (TM).

If the wood does need to be treated to withstand the elements, you will
need to find out what they recommend.

In any event, I would use standard PT lumber for the deck columns, and for 
the ledger plate (if applicable.)

Non-pressure treated lumber (which would normally not be recommended if it 
weren't free!)  will be ok for the rest of it, provided that it can be treated.

Be sure to post your findings for the next lucky person who gets free 
fire-resistant wood!   8^)

Bob

Long ago, in a galaxy far away...

I  remember    building    a   "temporary"  deck  to  replace  a  rotting  back
stairs_and_landing.  I  looked  into  using a liquid offered in hardware stores
that made the wood  fireretardant,  dry  and  wet rot retardant and totally bug
proof.  The problem was  that  it  shortly  got  pulled  because  it was highly
carcinogenic (fumes and skin contact).  Fortunately, I had not  used it and got
my money back.  The deck rotted around the nails in 5 years.

Now, if that's the case here, cheap  could  be  awfully expensive.  A couple of
years ago I put up a 12x16 deck  with  railing and stairs using 2x10 joists and
5/4x6 bull nose decking - all was pressure treated.  The materials came to less
than $500.00.  Best guess is that PT lasts 10/15/20 (?)  years  even in contact
with water.

All things considered, I would use PT again instead of free fireproof wood.

    Thanx for inputs/suggestions. I guess the next logical thing to
    do is call a supplier/manufacturer, and ask for inputs. In the mean
    time any further tips/warnings/suggestions/experiences etc... are
    greatly appreciated. I will post any findings...
                                                 
    
    thanx again

    I spoke w/ purchaser of Maki's home center who called BB&S treatment
    of R.I.. The person from BB&S says that the wood is pressure treated
    w/ a salt based chemical, and that usage even in laundry rooms or
    bathrooms is NOT recomended. Apparently where the nails penatrate
    the wood the salts/treatment leaches out and will promote accelarated
    decay if exposed to water/moisture. As far as contct w/ skin , no
    info was given. 
    
     Free wood = more mass in lumber pile
     fyi/bob

    I have been mulling over the idea of installing a fire sprinkler system
    in my home.  With a single story house, access to the attic, and
    re-plumbing my entire house in two weekends by myself 18 months ago, I
    see the task as relatively easy weekend project. 
    
    I was wondering if anyone had any ideas about where to find information
    about the types of codes about sprinkler systems.  I am also interested
    in any installations/configurations of sprinkler systems which you
    found particularly effective or inventive.
    
    The most common type of sprinkler head that I remember seeing are those
    that hang from the ceiling although I have seem some which are mounted
    on the wall just below the ceiling.  Based on your experiences or other
    knowledge, is one more effective than the other and why? 
    
    In my house I have basically two rows of rooms separated by a long wall
    running the length of the house.  I was thinking of running two lines,
    one down each side of the house with a shutoff for each line and a
    common shutoff.  This would allow me to shutoff the system in case of
    malfunction or the fire had been extinguished.  I plan on tying into the
    water supply as it comes into the house before any other appliances or
    connections thereby allowing the max. flow rate in a fire regardless of
    what other water oriented tasks are happening at the time.  
    
    I am still kicking around the idea of PVC vs. metal pipes.  I see the
    fact that PVC will melt as a plus vs. a minus because if the pipe
    is hot enough to melt at a point, there probably is a need for water
    at the point.  On the other hand, this would reduce the water at
    other points, which may have more need.  Of course I could connect
    the two lines at the far end and make a loop thereby eliminating
    the need for separate line shutoffs but provide water from two sources
    to a single sprinkler head.  Any thoughts??? 
    
    I am really looking for any thoughts, experiences, ideas, whatever you
    know about sprinkler systems.  I hope to use your input to develop the
    best system for my needs.  Please feel free to send me copies of
    anything you might come across using interoffice mail if you have
    anything that would be too cumbersome to type into the conference. 
    I will also give my home address and pay the postage if you feel
    the use of interoffice mail is taking advantage of the company.

    *** also posted in TOOK::FIRE_RESCUE_EMS.***
    

    As an aside, I currently joined the local fire dept. as a volunteer 6
    months ago and will be speaking with them for more details and ideas
    from those who have a different perspective.  Any information I collect
    I will post here for others. 

    The NFPA fire inspection manual has full details you need to know.
    There are many considerations that need to be taken into account.
    Send me your mailstop and I can forward some of what I have...
    
    -j

I seem to remember an article in Fine Hombuilding about a year and a half or
two years ago about installing springler in residential construction.

I try and remember to look it up when I get home tonight.

- Mark

    Bruce Ramsey @ALF or
    WARLRD::B_RAMSEY or
    send/author
    
    ALF/W25  Bruce Ramsey

re .3:

It's in the February/March 1988 issue, pp. 42-45.

Jim

	I was putting boxes up in the attic over the weekend and was amazed how
	dry  and  hot  the  air up there was.  It must have been 120 degrees or
	above.   That  makes  me  wonder - how common are fires starting in the
	attic? 

	With the  summer sun beating down on the black roof tiles, it's a solar
	oven.  I am storing a lot of my empty cardboard boxes, boxes of papers,
	notebooks,  etc  in  the  attic  -  the stuff most people keep in their
	attic.   At  what  temperature  will  paper  and  paper  products  like
	cardboard spontaneously combust? Am I just being paranoid because attic
	fires don't happen to people or is this something I should be concerned
	about (ie, like only putting non-burning items up there).

	Also, our  attic  only  has  gable vents - one on each end.  We will be
	adding  soffit  vents  ourselves later this summer (our house inspector
	recommended  doing  it).   I  can't  see how adding these little 3 inch
	diameter  discs every so many feet are going to bring in that much more
	air into the attic.  Do they work?

	I'm going  to  put a thermometer  in the attic to see how hot it gets
	up there - at what temperature should I worry?

	-Erik

�At  what  temperature  will  paper  and  paper  products  like
�	cardboard spontaneously combust? 
    
    As any Ray Bradbury fan knows, book paper combusts at 451�F.

Re: .1

No it doesn't, really.  Bradbury just made that up.  The actual ignition
temperature varies.

Re: .0

It can get well over 120 degrees in an attic, but all of the works I have
read on this topic say that having a fire start due to the heat is NOT
something you need to worry about.  However, you should seriously consider
adding ventilation, as a hot attic means a hot house and added air
conditioning load.

				Steve

    
    My parents felt as you did and they installed a fan system in the attic
    that removes the dead, hot air.  They love it, it goes on automatically
    when the attic reaches a certain temp, thereby keeping on top of the
    situation.  They have a PACKED attic, with lots of boxes and papers and
    stuff, and have had no problems whatsoever.
    
    N

    re -.1
    I hope the automatic fan system is supplemented with an automatic
    temperature sensor so that in case of fire, the fan does NOT run,
    creating a draft that feeds the flame!

Several people (builders, architects) have told me that those little circular
soffit vents border on being a waste of time.  The best attic venting would be
continuous strips the length of the soffits, plus a continuous ridge vent, and
make sure that the air can get past the insulation over the outside walls.  Of
course, the power option would work well too, provided that there's enough
intake area -- I don't know if the little circular jobs will provide enough.

   The only 2 situations I'm aware of where spontaneous combustion is a problem
in storing large quantities of damp hay where the heat, pressure and
combustable material all work together.  If the hay isn't damp it won't ignite.
If the haystack (or stack of bales) isn't large you don't get the pressure to
build up the heat.

   I've heard of chemical reactions like some floor coatings (polyurethane type
stuff) left in rags if not cleaned and disposed of properly can catch fire
without external ignition.

   If the boxes in the attic are dry and are not tightly bundled/stacked, then
I, personally, wouldn't be too concerned about spontaneous combustion. However,
you do whatever makes YOU sleep better at night.

Al

	    I second the continuous soffit vents.  The little round vents
	are next to useless and you're liable to get thrown off the ladder
	or break a wrist trying to drill (hole saw) those big holes.
	    There are plenty of notes in here on venting attics.  If you
	would like more information, DIR 1111.* will point you to it.

					Tim

	I moved into a house that had an electric attic
	fan on a thermostat with automatic safety shutoff.
	However the fan motor has failed on with a stuck
	rotor shaft.

	I haven't gotten around to fixing it so I have it
	disabled so it doesn't cause a fire.

	I would much prefer a passive venting system.

    	Thanks for the info! I just moved a bunch of stuff into the attic and
    	don't feel so paranoid about it now. 

    	But just for hah-hahs, I installed an extra smoke detector I had
    	laying around and mounted it up in the attic, just in case. 
    	Can't hurt.

    	I'll have to read the attic ventilation notes when I have time. 
    	It's going to be a lot of work cutting a dozen round holes through 
    	the wall where the roof meets, and I don't want to go through all 
    	the effort if it won't produce a gain. 

    	-Erik

	Did anyone see the TV show on CBS last night called "Howed
	they do that?"?  On it they showed a whole neighborhood
	of homes burnt to the ground, but in the middle of it all
	was one home left standing and untouched by the fires!

	The owner who also was the designer/builder used Stuco for
	siding, clay tile roof, double glazed windows, etc.

	He had also hosed down his roof for four hours before the
	fires had reached there.

	Believe it or not the reporters said the family did not
	carry fire insurance!!!!

	My guess however the the payback period for such a
	fireproof house would be over a lifetime compared to
	just carrying fire insurance???

    
    I would think that not loosing anything that couldnt
    be replaced because of a fire would be payback enought!
    
    This situation exists every year.  I wounder way more people
    havnt taken better precautions???
    
    JD

    I heard an LA fire official last night talking about home foam units
    that could cover your whole house with foam and a pump that floats in
    your swimming pool and empties it on top of your house.
    

One of the most serious problems in that area is that wood shingle roofs are
very popular and ignite at the smallest spark.  A Class A asphalt/fiberglass
shingle roof (or tile/slate) will go a long way towards preventing such
fires.

				Steve

People build houses in Southern Florida or on the Hawaiian Islands that can't
stand hurricane force winds.  People build houses behind levees in the Mid-West
flood plains.  California is the worst:  they build houses where fire,
earthquakes, mudslides and severe drought and destroy them.  Most people are not
interested in building houses to survive such things, since "it will never
happen to them".

After Hurricane Iniki, I saw an interview of a guy who's home had been destroyed
by Hurricane Ewa in 1982.  He rebuilt to hurricane standards, and his house
survived Iniki.

I have dramatic photos from one of the log home magazines of a neighborhood in
Homestead, Florida after Hurricane Andrew.  Most of the houses looked like piles
of matchsticks.  Two homes stood, both log homes, each of which survived only
minor damage.

I say make the extra insurance mandatory, and charge even more if your house
doesn't have a chance of surviving.  That way, people can make their choices
before the disaster, rather than having the rest of us (FEMA) pay after.

Elaine

I agree with you 100%, Elaine.  The worst thing is that the government (read,
we, the taxpayers) will pay these folks to rebuild in the same place using
the same unsafe practices, and this will happen all over again in a few
years.

				Steve

    
    I just finished reading a book by John McPhee, which not only discusses
    this, but also goes into the potential for flooding on the Mississippi.
    This was written a few years ago, before the disasters this year.
    
    Not only does FEMA pick up the post-disaster tag, but federal taxes
    often supplement the cost of expensive preventative measures.  After
    the chaparral fires in the sierra nevada mountains, comes the debris
    flows - millions of tons of rock & mud that sweep away houses. The
    preventative measure is to build huge expensive catch basins, catch the
    flows and then cart it BACK up into the mountains to dump it ready for
    the next flow.  
    
    The book was interesting in that it points out that the "disasters"
    in these locales are natural phenomena.  Man is making worse by
    trying to control nature, and making himself a potential victim just
    by living there.  Mcphees' suggestion is that the rest of us are footing
    the bill so that a number of people can live in a nice location.
    A bit of a value judgement, but I'd never thought of it in those terms.
    
    Another hidden cost of this is that the federal givernment also
    underwrites insurance for homes that insurance companies won't touch.
    They don't invest this money, and in the event of a disaster, have to
    eat the total cost according to Mcphee.
    
    It made interesting reading.
    
    Colin
    

    re: .6
    
    For those interested, I think the book title is "The Control of
    Nature."  It's especially relevant after the recent Mississippi
    floods and California fires.  

    
    >>Another hidden cost of this is that the federal givernment also
    >>underwrites insurance for homes that insurance companies won't touch.
    >>They don't invest this money, and in the event of a disaster, have to
    >>eat the total cost according to Mcphee.
    
      Yeah it sure seems like a waste of money. Its not like there's no
    space in the US.
    
      The next thing you know, they'll be paying farmers NOT to grow
    crops.:^)
    
    				Kenny

Ignoring for the moment the insurance angle, the fellow mentioned in the base 
note deserves credit.  As previous notes point out, building there at all is 
questionable judgment, but putting wood shingles on your roof is plain 
stupid.

But I think that particular area is one of the few places that it would make 
any sense at all to build a house that is so resistant to fire from external 
sources.  For most areas of the country, such expense would be wasted; if 
there is a fire it would start internally, and all you'd have would be a 
house in which the walls and roof are in tact, but the interior is gutted, 
and the inhabitants dead from smoke inhalation.

Clay

    
   re: Kenny...lets not start a "hot spot" on the farm subject..:)
    
   re: Clay	
    	You might be right about an oven, but that what sprinklers
    	are made for....  
    	You can't prevent against everything.  But I think you have to
    	look at doing what you can for the area you live in.  A grass
    	shack at the North Pole just wouldnt cut it!  I just thing
    	building codes have to be change in order to prevent some of 
        the damage caused by geographic conditions.  Somewhere along
    	the line, it all come out of our pockets!
    
    	JD

re .4

    
>>I say make the extra insurance mandatory, and charge even more if your house
>>doesn't have a chance of surviving.  That way, people can make their choices
>>before the disaster, rather than having the rest of us (FEMA) pay after.

    
    Aw, c'mon, have a heart.  These poor people in Malibu are probably barely
    surviving financially.  The least we can do is help them rebuild.  It's
    not easy to mantain those multi 100K houses!  :-) :-) :-)

    
    Anyway, the Northeast is WAY overdue for an earthquake, and I bet none
    of us have our homes bolted to the foundation.  So they'll pay *us*
    then. It all evens out over the milennia.   ;-)
    
    Colin
    

>   re: Clay     
>        You might be right about an oven, but that what sprinklers
>        are made for....  

Right; I was thinking more in terms of having limited financial resources.  
In most areas of the country having a sprinkler system would be more cost 
effective than to build a fireproof home.  In that area, maybe not.

>        I just thing
>        building codes have to be change in order to prevent some of 
>        the damage caused by geographic conditions.  Somewhere along
>        the line, it all come out of our pockets!

And one simple change would be to make wood roof shingles non-code, or at 
least in a separate, and more expensive fire insurance category.  That way if 
you want to be trendy, go ahead, but pay the price.  Your insurance will cost 
more, and your house will be worth less.

Clay

Re: .11

According to reports I have seen, many of the homes destroyed in Malibu 
belonged to those of modest incomes who had lived there a long time; many
of the homes were hand-built by the owners.  While there are certainly
very expensive sections of Malibu, it's not all movie stars.

				Steve

    
    Well, except that you can make wood shingles fireproof. One of the
    early interviews from the fire scene showed some unhappy former homeowners
    staring at the charred rubble -- which was topped by a layer of unburnt
    shingles. Everything burned but that. (I think the house walls caught
    fire from the surrounding shrubbery...)
    
    JP

 >	The owner who also was the designer/builder used Stuco for
 >	siding, clay tile roof, double glazed windows, etc.
 
 >	My guess however the the payback period for such a
 >	fireproof house would be over a lifetime compared to
 >	just carrying fire insurance???
    
    I'd guess most of the new homes here in AZ are built this way.  Stucco
    is a very cheap way to build a home, essentially, you frame it, put
    insulation in, chicken wire over the insulation, and blow on the the
    stucco.  Tile roofs are much cheaper in the long run (a lifetime
    roof-never needs to be replaced).  It's not that expensive.  The
    problem in LA is that most of those homes are 10-20 years old and had
    shingle roofs.  I lived in CA and everyone was told to replace their
    old, non-fire retardent shingle roofs, but very few did.
    
    Bruce 

    RE: .6  - the book you mentioned is part of the required reading for
    an environmental course at Keene State this year.
    
    

    
    In Colorado Springs the new fire codes have some pretty strict rules
    for the shingles used, and for the vegetation on and around a house.
    Sensibly these rules only apply to houses hidden away in the foothills,
    where it takes *ages* for the fire engines to get there.
    
    They were also talking about mandatory sprinklers for houses at the
    tops of the hills. So the local government does take an interest.
    
    I also read in the paper that California or LA county or whatever has
    new fire codes, which the replacements houses will have to be built
    to.
    
    Simon

    Somethng which aways struck me as odd is how flimsy the connection is
    between a house and its foundation. Often just a skinny metal strap
    or worse - a few cement nails. During the blizzard of 76 (or ws it 78)
    I lived near Rever Beach, in Beachmont several houses on the waterfront
    were hit w/ waves that literaly, either knocked the house off of the
    foundation, or the water volume caused the house to float off of its
    foundation. Several homes landed (nearly intact) in the street and
    neighbors yards etc.... its a bit unerving to see , but
    
    
     who'd a thunk it....
    

    
    Most houses of today "should" be bolted to the foundations.
    But I think in that case.  Given the amout of water pressure
    under the house.  Any bolting would have a good chance of
    pulling thur the wood!
    JD

    RE: .20
    
    Why? 
    
    Marc H.

    re:21
    
    "why"
    .......More than none require new construction to have the plate 
    	   bolted to the foundation....
    
    .......Given the right condition, water has a lot of power...
    
    JD

    In California, houses are required to be bolted to the foundations for
    reasons of earthquake safety.  Over time, all the houses that aren't
    will get destroyed -- evolution in action.  :-)
    
    About the house in the base note.  My family lives in California and
    told me that it wasn't quite so simple as the neighborhood burning
    down and one house left standing.  They said that there were fire
    fighters on the scene.  But it's still significant that they were
    able to save that house almost undamaged (some broken outer panes
    of the double pane glass) whereas nothing could be done to save the
    others on the block.
    
    One more fire story.  My brother's research advisor at UCLA was once
    out of the country when a brush fire threatened his home.  So nobody
    was there to wet the roof or anything else useful.  However, this guy
    was smart enough to plant a 100 foot swath of iceplant behind his house.
    Iceplant is not the prettiest of plants, but pluck the fleshy leaves
    and dry them in the sun for a week and they are still moist.  The
    fire burned right up to the edge of the iceplant and died there.
    Protecting the roof agaist flying sparks is important, but keeping 
    the grounds around the house fire-safe is essential, too.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

    
    It sure is funny that .23 talked about earthquakes and houses
    being destroyed by them.  LA certainly has been taking a beating lately
    and I feel sad about the lives that were lost.
    
    About the damage to homes there -  It looks like all of us will be paying
    to rebuild the earthquake victims' houses.  It seems that about 75% of
    the people there realized that it really wasn't necessary to buy
    earthquake insurance.  Just let Uncle Sam pay for the rebuilding.
    Looks like they made a good decision.   When they rebuild, I hope they
    build their houses stronger.
    
    Phil

    
    Guess i'll have to stockup on building material.  I dont
    want o hear .."price has go up due to the earthquake rebuild
    on the west coast....
    
    JD

    
    What really surprised me is that in such an earthquake and fire prone
    area they still use GAS for everything. It looks like most of the fires
    were caused by gas igniting and then burning things down. As a matter
    of fact the first scenes we saw from the earthquake on television were
    from a place where a gas main and a water main had been ruptured very
    close together...you saw a fountain of flames and water together. I get
    the impression that this fire went on for HOURS. I would think that
    putting the fire out would be a simple matter of just shutting the gas 
    off. I'm not advacoting banning gas there altogether, but they should
    at least put some type of safety devices in place that will shut off
    all the gas in designated areas in the event of a disaster like this. 
    
    Maybe the smart people will switch to oil or electric heat and electric
    stoves. Probably the best way to "earthquake proof" a house.
    
    Steve B.
    
    

    I don't think oil heat is an option in southern California -- no
    delivery infrastructure.  Electric heat is still a lot more expensive 
    than gas, even in a climate as mild as so California.  Certainly,
    it would be good to have better emergency procedures for the gas
    lines.  It would have been even better if the money that was voted 
    to earthquake-proof the freeways had actually been spent...
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry
    
    PS -- As it turned out, I was in Los Angeles visiting friends the
    day before the quake.  My flight was almost cancelled... close call!

    
    Delivery infrastructure? All you need is a truck to pull up to the
    house and pump the oil into your tank. It's not a pipeline. 
    
    Steve B. 

    1)  You have a house that uses oil heat, so it needs an oil delivery.
    
    2)  This requires a truck.  But it isn't cost effective to run the
        truck if *you* are the only one -- there need to be a certain
        mimimum number of houses that use oil or the person with the
        truck won't make any money -- or he'll charge so much that you
        switch back to oil or even electricity.
    
    3)  And where does the truck fill up?  There's got to be a tank
        somewhere that gets filled with home heating oil.  Probably this
        also is not cost effective if it is used by only one truck.
    
    4)  And who fills the tank?  And how often is it filled?  Is it possible 
        to get extra deliveries if there is a protracted cold spell?  This
        all affects the size and cost of the central storage tank.
    
    If the above are all in place, you've got the necessary infrastructure
    to use oil heat.  If they aren't, you cannot use oil heat unless
    someone decides there's a profit to be made in putting this all
    together.  The infrastructure can be cheap, but the result is higher
    delivery costs, which means that few are going to use it.  To tempt 
    anyone to make the switch, there has to be a really big advantage in 
    the conversion -- as there was when we switched from coal to oil, or 
    from gas lights to electric lights.  And even then it took a while to 
    get the new industry established.  In this case (heating in so. Calif.) 
    the only downside to gas is that it burns when it leaks.  It's probably 
    cheaper to attack that problem directly than to try to establish a market 
    for home heating oil.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

> ... the only downside to gas is that it burns when it leaks.  It's probably 
> cheaper to attack that problem directly than to try to establish a market 
> for home heating oil.

	You mean like make a gas that doesn't burn :-)


	Actually though you may be on to something.  Maybe they can
	do something to the gas that changes it's chemical composition
	so that it doesn't burn (at least not with oxygen), but that the
	change can be reversed at the point of delivery.  Of course it
	would have to be an inexpensive process (if it could be done at
	all :-)

    
    What I meant by infrastructure was that you don't need to run pipes to
    all the houses like you do with natural gas. 
    
    >... the only downside to gas is that it burns when it leaks. 
    
    Precisely what I'm talking about. When you have pipelines containing a
    highly combustible material under roads, buildings, etc in an
    EARTHQUAKE prone area you are just asking for trouble. A large
    percentage of damage in earthquakes is from fires. Don't bother
    earthquake proofing any buildings until you turn off the gas...
    
    Steve B.

    re .30:
    Well, I was thinking of automatic shutoff devices in the gas mains that
    would close down upon abrupt pressure drops, rather than changing the
    gas itself some way.  We do this with electricity -- circuit breakers
    detect low resistance (equals high current) and close down the circuit
    until manually reset.  Presumably similar things could be done on gas
    mains, if the gas company felt it worth its while.  That could be
    accomplished either by making them pay for damage from gas leaks or by
    legislation.  
    
    re .31:  
    I was using "infrastructure" in the broader sense of the entire network
    of interlocking services and equipment that are needed to make the fuel
    available.  Perhaps this isn't the usual use of that term, but it's what 
    I meant.  E.g., one can use gas heat without pipes in the street -- but
    one needs propane delivery trucks, and tanks where it is stored, and
    a distribution system that brings it into the area in a cost-effective
    way, etc.  Indeed, the infrastructure for home heating oil (or propane)
    isn't as expensive as for natural gas, but some is still needed, and I
    don't believe that it exists in southern California.  At least, I never
    heard of anyo residential use of oil heat while I lived there.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry