My wife just told me about a sensor in one of the buildings in her
school going off. so the fire alarm rings in all the buildings. Even
those on other campuses.. about 2 football fields away.
They couldn't shut the alarms so everyone was sent home.
WHY ON EARTH would fire alarms be connected to buildings that far away.
A fire is a building thing, not an entire 2 campus event. So thousands
were released unnecessarily. Interesting how local and state guberments
can F up every simple thing.
--
Jeff
On Thu, 23 May 2013 16:47:17 -0400, Greg Guarino <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>
>Seems to me that the real problem here is the inability to shut off the
>alarm. In case of a real fire I would want the staff at the other
>building to know about it. They might need to help shepherd the kids out
>of the affected building and prepare to shelter them in the building
>that is intact.
It is set up so that it cannot be shut off. The fire department does
that when they show up. They get pissed off if you silence the alarm
and also if people do not evacuate even if it is a false alarm.
Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 5/23/2013 4:17 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>> My wife just told me about a sensor in one of the buildings in her
>> school going off. so the fire alarm rings in all the buildings. Even
>> those on other campuses.. about 2 football fields away.
>> They couldn't shut the alarms so everyone was sent home.
>>
>> WHY ON EARTH would fire alarms be connected to buildings that far away.
>> A fire is a building thing, not an entire 2 campus event. So thousands
>> were released unnecessarily. Interesting how local and state guberments
>> can F up every simple thing.
>>
>>
> Seems to me that the real problem here is the inability to shut off the
> alarm. In case of a real fire I would want the staff at the other
> building to know about it. They might need to help shepherd the kids out
> of the affected building and prepare to shelter them in the building
> that is intact.
I worked in a hospital where the fire alarm would occasionally go off
on it's on. Only the fire department could turn it off, also. Of
course they would isolate which sensor or pull alarm set it off and
check out that area before calling it a false alarm.
--
GW Ross
If words could speak, I wonder what
they'd say?
On 5/23/2013 4:47 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 5/23/2013 4:17 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>> My wife just told me about a sensor in one of the buildings in her
>> school going off. so the fire alarm rings in all the buildings. Even
>> those on other campuses.. about 2 football fields away.
>> They couldn't shut the alarms so everyone was sent home.
>>
>> WHY ON EARTH would fire alarms be connected to buildings that far away.
>> A fire is a building thing, not an entire 2 campus event. So thousands
>> were released unnecessarily. Interesting how local and state guberments
>> can F up every simple thing.
>>
>>
> Seems to me that the real problem here is the inability to shut off the
> alarm. In case of a real fire I would want the staff at the other
> building to know about it. They might need to help shepherd the kids out
> of the affected building and prepare to shelter them in the building
> that is intact.
I don't think that would happen, you would be emptying your building and
keeping the kids together. So you would not be helping at the other
building.
Think about it, the campus is 2 football fields away and has houses and
buildings in the way.. would you want to march your kids over their to
help evacuate the other kids... not happening.. I could understand an
air raid connection, a lock down, but not a fire alarm, just plain
stupid.. like the zero tolerance policies.
--
Jeff
On 5/23/2013 4:17 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> My wife just told me about a sensor in one of the buildings in her
> school going off. so the fire alarm rings in all the buildings. Even
> those on other campuses.. about 2 football fields away.
> They couldn't shut the alarms so everyone was sent home.
>
> WHY ON EARTH would fire alarms be connected to buildings that far away.
> A fire is a building thing, not an entire 2 campus event. So thousands
> were released unnecessarily. Interesting how local and state guberments
> can F up every simple thing.
>
>
Seems to me that the real problem here is the inability to shut off the
alarm. In case of a real fire I would want the staff at the other
building to know about it. They might need to help shepherd the kids out
of the affected building and prepare to shelter them in the building
that is intact.
woodchucker wrote:
> My wife just told me about a sensor in one of the buildings in her
> school going off. so the fire alarm rings in all the buildings. Even
> those on other campuses.. about 2 football fields away.
> They couldn't shut the alarms so everyone was sent home.
>
> WHY ON EARTH would fire alarms be connected to buildings that far
> away. A fire is a building thing, not an entire 2 campus event. So
> thousands were released unnecessarily. Interesting how local and
> state guberments can F up every simple thing.
D'Oh,... come on Jeff - because the people that do not think, thought it
sounded good. Really - you knew the answer - it was a rhetoridal question,
wasn't it...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 5/23/2013 4:17 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>> My wife just told me about a sensor in one of the buildings in her
>> school going off. so the fire alarm rings in all the buildings. Even
>> those on other campuses.. about 2 football fields away.
>> They couldn't shut the alarms so everyone was sent home.
>>
>> WHY ON EARTH would fire alarms be connected to buildings that far
>> away. A fire is a building thing, not an entire 2 campus event. So
>> thousands were released unnecessarily. Interesting how local and
>> state guberments can F up every simple thing.
>>
>>
> Seems to me that the real problem here is the inability to shut off
> the alarm. In case of a real fire I would want the staff at the other
> building to know about it. They might need to help shepherd the kids
> out of the affected building and prepare to shelter them in the
> building that is intact.
No - thre real problem is the people who do not think about things like
this, but enact rules all the same...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
woodchucker wrote:
> On 5/23/2013 4:47 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
>> On 5/23/2013 4:17 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>>> My wife just told me about a sensor in one of the buildings in her
>>> school going off. so the fire alarm rings in all the buildings. Even
>>> those on other campuses.. about 2 football fields away.
>>> They couldn't shut the alarms so everyone was sent home.
>>>
>>> WHY ON EARTH would fire alarms be connected to buildings that far
>>> away. A fire is a building thing, not an entire 2 campus event. So
>>> thousands were released unnecessarily. Interesting how local and
>>> state guberments can F up every simple thing.
>>>
>>>
>> Seems to me that the real problem here is the inability to shut off
>> the alarm. In case of a real fire I would want the staff at the other
>> building to know about it. They might need to help shepherd the kids
>> out of the affected building and prepare to shelter them in the
>> building that is intact.
> I don't think that would happen, you would be emptying your building
> and keeping the kids together. So you would not be helping at the
> other building.
>
> Think about it, the campus is 2 football fields away and has houses
> and buildings in the way.. would you want to march your kids over
> their to help evacuate the other kids... not happening.. I could
> understand an air raid connection, a lock down, but not a fire alarm,
> just plain stupid.. like the zero tolerance policies.
Jeff - you fail to understand the lack of mental capability of those in
charge - especially in educational institutions. It's for the children,
after all. That's why we drive past schools that are located 1000 feet off
the road, at 15 mph, by "local law"...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]