Who benefits from the requirement to have smoke detectors?

[Gaston]

The difference, too, is that not everyone has to have a pool

[Grelinette]

The difference, too, is that a pool doesn't catch fire

[Flytox]

The difference, too, is that a pool doesn't catch fire

Finally, it depends on what you fill it ...

[SixK]

Meanwhile, there is still no law against colon cancer ...
It should, however, save more lives than the radars and smoke detectors combined.

Come on! Vaseline for everyone, it's my tour!

SixK

[Did67]

.... it seems to me that it should be linked to a more general phenomenon of daily fussy management aimed at overcoming all potential risks, psychic counterpart of the death drive that guides all of our functioning; in other words, to escape into the details to better hide the global catastrophe that we are looking for ... in all blindness.

There, I join you, that's a real question!

The non-acceptance of the idea of ​​death while we are looking for it everywhere (by our choices - but cf, among those even who complain after all, of "extreme sports", ultimate proof that they exist) .

To complain about the obligation of this unfortunate detector remains, on the other hand, for me, ridiculous. And is nothing else than the franchouillard syndrome of "never happy" (very unfortunate, too! Because it is the same who moans when the State does nothing! Monday morning: "what does the State do?"; Tuesday: "What a shame, we are imposed detectors, it is to enrich ourselves"; Wednesday: "there are; too many charges" Thursday: "you surrender, I had to wait in the emergency room"; Friday: 'I bought the last Iphone! "; Saturday:" I can't go out anymore ... ", etc ...).

[aime38]

The non-acceptance of the idea of ​​death while we are looking for it everywhere (by our choices - but cf, among those even who complain after all, of "extreme sports", ultimate proof that they exist) .

Hello Did67

that's exactly it. the blog article says it itself: there is a non-acceptance of risk in our societies and then we are made laws to mitigate them first that it is difficult to apply.

and manufacturers are playing on it: and a small detector here, and soon a fire extinguisher ... it's for your safety ladies and gentlemen

especially when we look at the figures (well, when the pro unions give them) like the deaths of children in fires: around twenty a year but we are making a big deal about it.

we really stop at nothing to make us swallow the pill. Vaseline for everyone as the other would say.

Have a nice day anyway

[chatelot16]

considering the number of unemployed that must be compensated at present there is no point in reducing the number of victims of fire: it is just a natural remedy against overcrowding

of course, take what I say in the second degree ...

what is to be taken in the first degree is that it is absurd for a state to make a law for a problem as anecdotal as the fire victims who could possibly have been saved by a Chinese electronic detector, when this State does nothing to make the French industry work and avoid unemployment unemployment and the suicides that go with it ... with figures much more serious than the victims of fire

[gabyurbana]

Smoke detectors are good scams and if the state falls into the trap it is really a disaster. And the article also talks about the muddles of manufacturers of insulators such as glass wool and rock wool. it is true that making insulation a bulwark against fires, bonjur the pull of hair.

"The insulation ensures the fire resistance of the walls while preventing the insulation itself from being a risk for the inhabitant (emission of fumes and toxic gases). However, here too, the statistics of Civil Security, even if they need to be improved, highlight the speed of the firefighters' interventions.Thus, even if there are deaths (unfortunately), they are not caused by the intoxication of fumes from charred insulation but rather by burning furniture, beds or sofas.

Also, presenting the insulation as a bulwark against fire, and consequently making it a differentiating element in its marketing discourse vis-à-vis competing products, is misleading. Some do, however, arguing that "more insulation means more combustible material, therefore longer and more dangerous fires". Fear as a competitive lever therefore has a bright future " http://bati2030.blogspot.fr/2015/03/det ... QkkiaPLfcR


I had this kind of speech between an expert of these wools and a guy working in the polystirene. hello bad faith. and when I told them that this speech was that of the asbestos manufacturers, well there, it calmed everyone !!

Bravo the industrialists !!