advice needed: fireproof safe, UL fire rating, etc.?!?
Beowulf
even of a home fire. Will such a safe really protect stuff? I want to
store some precious film negatives and also data CDROM discs in the safe,
because I am a photographer. Office Max has a safe rated as UL 1 hour of
fire protection, which means nothing to me; does that mean the container
will burn in one hour of fire, or the contents will stay ok for one hour?
I am most concerned that film negatives and CDROM disks, both made of
plastics, would simply melt and hence become worthless in a matter of
minutes even inside such as fireproof safe. What is your experience as
firefighters in homes damaged by fire, in terms of fireproof safes or
lockboxes and their contents surviving or beind destroyed in a home fire?
Thank you in advance for any advice you can provide!
~Beowulf
Gary Carter
show heat damage without ignition. Would think your negatives and discs
would see dramatic damage long before wood. My best suggestion for such
items would be to keep them in a bank safety deposit box. Their will be a
significantly lessened chance of a fire in the bank, and most are equipped
with a fire suppression system. A fire proof safe in the home would be a
good investment for items you must have at home. I have my fire proof gun
safe in my basement along an outside wall. There is usually significantly
less heat in the lowest level of a structure during a fire, and on the
outside wall it makes for easier recovery after the fire also by having it
already on the lowest level you avoid added damage from the safe dropping
though the floor. Even the best fire proof safe will not provide 100%
protection but it is a lot better than an old shoe box.
Gary Carter
NREMT-B/FF/Farmedic
"Beowulf" <beo...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.21....@nowhere.net...
FLewis
1,000 degrees to 2,000 degrees for a preset test period. The interior must
maintain a temperature of 350 degrees or less throughout the heat up, and
cool down period to qualify for the rating.
A Google search will give you more information.
"Beowulf" <beo...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.12.21....@nowhere.net...
HoHo Ho
Is your gun safe water proof?
If there's a fire at your digs and assuming the fire department responded, the
basement would now
be a swimming pool full of debris and water and if it's winter chances are it
would also be a skating rink.
I don't believe your safe would do ya much good down there submarine-ing while
waiting
for a couple of floors of debris to be removed off it or waiting for the
spring thaw.
Tiny Bubbles,
Ho Ho (No Don) Ho
Gary Carter wrote:
> ... have my fire proof gun
> safe in my basement along an outside wall. There is usually significantly
> less heat in the lowest level of a structure during a fire, and on the
> outside wall it makes for easier recovery after the fire...
> Gary Carter
> NREMT-B/FF/Farmedic
Aaron Hicks
>I want to buy a safe for my home that will protect materials in it in the
>even of a home fire. Will such a safe really protect stuff?
They generally work, yes. With some caveats, as below.
>I want to store some precious film negatives and also data CDROM discs in
>the safe, because I am a photographer.
Then you will need a media vault, which is rated for storing this
sort of thing.
>Office Max has a safe rated as UL 1 hour of fire protection, which means
>nothing to me; does that mean the container will burn in one hour of
>fire, or the contents will stay ok for one hour?
Obviously you are concerned about the integrity of your data. I
assume you do not shop for film at Office Max; why would you seek to
purchase a container for your data at the same venue? The employees there
will not be capable of answering your questions beyond reading you the
printing on the box. I don't mean this as an insult to you or the
employees there; I simply mean that you should seek a professional.
>I am most concerned that film negatives and CDROM disks, both made of
>plastics, would simply melt and hence become worthless in a matter of
>minutes even inside such as fireproof safe. What is your experience as
>firefighters in homes damaged by fire, in terms of fireproof safes or
>lockboxes and their contents surviving or beind destroyed in a home fire?
>Thank you in advance for any advice you can provide!
There are two main types of fire resistance that are employed in
the construction of safes and vaults ("containers"). The first is a
hydrate (usually gypsum), which releases water in the form of steam,
flooding the interior of the safe. This absorbs a tremendous amount of
energy, and inerts the atmosphere within the container (can't burn if it's
all water). This is useless for film, data, etc., which, as you observed,
will melt when they get steamed like that.
The second type employs wood- or, at least, it does if they
haven't changed in the past few years, which I don't think they have. Wood
is remarkable in that it doesn't burn too well, surprisingly enough; it
charrs slowly enough that a given thickness of wood will keep the interior
nice and cool- hopefully long enough for help to arrive. This will depend
upon many factors, not the least of which is the ISO rating of your local
fire department; if you live in the boonies, forget about it. If you live
in a big city with hydrants and multiple engine companies within a few
miles, you're set.
The UL rating is a figure given based on certain tests that stress
the container under fire. These tests may or may not resemble "real world"
conditions. UL 72 is the relevant section for Class 125 and Class 150
containers:
http://ulstandardsinfonet.ul.com/scopes/0072.html
http://www.ul.com/fire/safes.html
The survival of any component in a fire may be quirky, at best;
rated containers may fail for one reason or another, and unrated
containers as crude as a steel pipe imbedded in the slab have served to
protect data in homes swept by wildfires (which subsequently burned to the
slab in the absence of any effort by firefighters to the contrary). About
the only way to assure survival is to construct a Class 1 noncombustible
structure (steel and concrete), and keep your materials in a rated fire
container within that structure, as the contents of the building may burn.
First suggestion: If you find a need to protect your data, find a
safe and vault technician (preferably a SAVTA member) in your area that
will sell you a container, as well as service the darned thing if it
breaks. Ask them all the questions you like.
Second suggestion: Buy a larger container than you will need. Get
a nice one, not a "toy" safe like those available on the market that are
primarily for looks and quick sales. We're talking about valuable data
here (aren't we?). Yes, it will be expensive. Yes, it will be cheaper to
buy the office-supply-store item. No, the cheaper one is not just as good
as the more expensive one.
Third suggestion: Maintain your container in a basement or on the
ground floor of your building, near an exterior wall. If your basement is
an area likely to be flooded in the event of a fire, keep it on the ground
floor; otherwise, if it would drain to the outside, put it on some cinder
blocks to keep it up off the basement floor. Try not to put it in an area
where the refrigerator will come crashing through the floor, crushing it
flat as a fritter.
By way of credentials, I used to work as a locksmith, and am an
accredited fire instructor. I've done a lot of other stuff, too, but they
don't relate to the issue at hand.
Do not reply to the e-mail address in the header. It doesn't work.
Spam trap.
Cheers,
-AJHicks
Chandler, AZ
Gary Carter
final mop-up has had less than 6" of water in the basement when all is said
and done. Most a just 1" or so. We don't dump water to dump water. Most
times we may go thru 3-4,000 gal of water on the scene and most of that is
applied to the exterior of the building and surrounding structures. You
cannot protect property by flooding the building to the eves with water. Did
see on time we had about 6' of water in the building. It was a Motel that
had a fire in the pool area, but it was there before we got there. Finding a
pool in a smoke filled room is definately a rush. The guy that did it still
stutters when he talks about it.
By your From line I am figuring you are just a troll. If I see another reply
from you I will not respond again unless you can prove to be just
uninformed.
Gary Carter
NREMT-B/FF/Farmedic
"HoHo (ų Don) Ho" <sa...@clause.com> wrote in message
news:3FE6FD43...@clause.com...
jbeck
> cannot protect property by flooding the building to the eves with water.
Did
> see on time we had about 6' of water in the building. It was a Motel that
> had a fire in the pool area, but it was there before we got there. Finding
a
> pool in a smoke filled room is definately a rush. The guy that did it
still
> stutters when he talks about it.
>
One dark and stormy night (okay, maybe it wasn't stormy but it was DARK) one
of the FF's whom I know and consider a mentor led entry on a structure fire.
A few feet inside the doorway he found the deep end of an indoor swimming
pool. After quickly and thoroughly inspecting the bottom of the pool and
failing to find victims or seat of the fire, he quickly exited it and the
building and ended up in rehab.
I have never gone SCUBA with an SCBA, so I am left with his evaluation of
the performance of that SCBA pack. Let us just say that, based upon his
comments, I cannot recommend SCBA for regular SCUBA activities, but it
apparently does well enough to work in a pinch. Of course, he is not a
SCUBA diver, so, perhaps the experience would have been a little more
positive for him if he had been.
The question I have not thought to ask until now is:
What would he have done if he had discovered the seat of the fire in the
bottom of the pool?
jbeck
> By your From line I am figuring you are just a troll. If I see another
reply
> from you I will not respond again unless you can prove to be just
> uninformed.
>
If he turns out to be a Troll, I would guess Highschool aged who recently
took Old English Lit.
Kurt Ullman
wrote:
>What would he have done if he had discovered the seat of the fire in the
>bottom of the pool?
>
>
I have done that a couple of times, although the pools were empty. Some
people in the mid70s took to fall cleaning the pool with products that reacted
rather aggressively with the left over chlorine on the side of the pool.
--
"People everywhere confuse what they read in the newspapers with news."
-A.J. Liebling
Gary Carter
| One dark and stormy night (okay, maybe it wasn't stormy but it was DARK)
one
| of the FF's whom I know and consider a mentor led entry on a structure
fire.
| A few feet inside the doorway he found the deep end of an indoor swimming
| pool. After quickly and thoroughly inspecting the bottom of the pool and
| failing to find victims or seat of the fire, he quickly exited it and the
| building and ended up in rehab.
|
| I have never gone SCUBA with an SCBA, so I am left with his evaluation of
| the performance of that SCBA pack. Let us just say that, based upon his
| comments, I cannot recommend SCBA for regular SCUBA activities, but it
| apparently does well enough to work in a pinch. Of course, he is not a
| SCUBA diver, so, perhaps the experience would have been a little more
| positive for him if he had been.
|
| The question I have not thought to ask until now is:
|
| What would he have done if he had discovered the seat of the fire in the
| bottom of the pool?
|
|
At least our guy was lucky his tool man was awake enough to grab him so he
only got to his waist, head first of course. I think before the idea of
going for a swim in turnout gear sunk in fully, he was mainly aggravated to
be on an exterior crew the rest of the time on the scene after only about
five minutes inside.
For anyone that is reading this that doesn't have fire ground training, the
reason he was stuck outside was his gear was soaked through. Increasing
possibility of a thermal burn from steam created by wet gear coming into
contact with a heated surface.
Gary Carter
jbeck
> only got to his waist, head first of course. I think before the idea of
> going for a swim in turnout gear sunk in fully, he was mainly aggravated
to
> be on an exterior crew the rest of the time on the scene after only about
> five minutes inside.
>
I can picture this so clearly, that I have to laugh. Kind of something
between wet hens, and what a cat is like after getting chucked into a
bathtub.
> For anyone that is reading this that doesn't have fire ground training,
the
> reason he was stuck outside was his gear was soaked through. Increasing
> possibility of a thermal burn from steam created by wet gear coming into
> contact with a heated surface.
>
Only takes one of those to leave it's mark.
Thanks for the post.
HoHo Don Ho
My comments were directed at the reasonableness of placing a gun safe in the
basement if ya intend to
keep it dry and accessible after a blaze.
Unless your supply comes from a tanker I'm betting you really have no idea just
how much
water is used at a fire. Using your figures of "3-4000 gal of water" on a
typical fire, rudimentary
calculations tell me that running a class A pumper at full tilt boogie will
dispatch that amount
of water in 3min 20 sec? (4,000 gal / 1200 gpm pump = 3.33 min). That's some
fancy
fire fightin' if it can indeed be done.
By the same reasoning a 1000 sq ft basement without any debris, boxes,
appliances,
or junk with 6" of run off water will contain around 3800 gallons. Not to
mention water from
broken supply pipes of a collapsing structure.
It's just that I wouldn't place anything of immediate value - my wife, kids,
cat, Faberge
egg collection - where it could be crushed or drowned. But that's just me.
I'm kinda peculiar that way...
Don Ho
(come see my show!)
Robert Nagle
That is great information and advice. Someone in Texas thanks you.
Robert Nagle
www.idiotprogrammer.com
jabsol...@gmail.com
http://www.jabsolutions.com.au/