FIRE PROTECTION. Statistics relating to the fire waste of America present an appall ing situation, and justify the oft-repeated criticism that we, as a nation, exhibit in this respect an unusual degree of carelessness and irresponsibility. For 1917, according to the report of the National Board of Fire Under writers, the nation's fire loss is estimated at $250,753,646. This represents a daily average loss of $686,996, and an average hourly loss of $28,624. Extending the period to 10 years the loss amounted to $2.106.558,510, an annual average of nearly $211,000,000. Since 1875 the aggregate fire loss has reached the stupesdocs total of $6,606,586,750. Compared with leadint European cities, the American per capita is approximately 10 times as much; while the number of fires per thousand population sbow5 a frequency nearly five times as great.
These figures, however, relate only to the direct fire loss and do not take into 3CCOUN the cost of maintaining expensive fire de partments and other extinguishing facilitie made necessary by the greater frequency as' destructiveness of fires in this country, nor the huge indirect losses resulting from fires, sad as loss of profits and demoralization of bm-t ness. Direct fire losses mean an annual tin tax of about $15 per family. If the cost c fire departments and special equipment be eluded a similar amount can be conservatives added, thus making the annual total $30 pc family. This huge waste represents an irrt coverable loss, since insurance does not sera to replace but simply shifts the distribution c fire waste. In the. long run the consuminz public must bear this loss in the form of it creased rentals and increased prices for good and services. The regrettable thing is that the larger part of this extraordinary waste is pre ventable and that it is so difficult, even these days when conservation of resources uppermost in the public mind, to educate ± American people to change their careless irresponsible habits in this important road( "Preventable fire," as President Wilson has well said, °is more than a private misfortm it is a public dereliction. At a time like
of emergency and manifest necessity for ea conservation of natural resources, it is Inc' than ever a matter of deep and pressing conse quence that every means should be taken prevent this evil.* To bring about this much desired rerch greatest emphasis has been placed by fire pre vention experts upon some eight leading line of effort. It shall be our purpose to brie* present the most essential phases concerning each. Only by using all of these factors, ad in proper combination with the others as cir cumstances justify, can preventable fire waste be reduced to a minimum.
Construction of Building.— This factor is of utmost importance in the prevention of the spread of fire after it has once obtained a good start. Various classifications of buildings from the fire prevention standpoint have bee published; but the one most commonly used groups structures into four main classes, viz ordinary, slow-burning, semi-fireproof and fireproof. Slow-burning or construc tion" buildings are so designed as to separate the several stories by a flooring of sufficient thickness (without openings, water-proof in structure, and supported by heavy timbers rest ing on stout wooden posts) to confine a fire on a given floor for a considerable period despite the presence of large stocks of com bustible goods. The primary purpose is to prevent the spread of fire to the stories above or below before the fire department may be reasonably certain of bringing the blaze under control.
Semi-fireproof structures, unlike the going, are built of non-inflammable material,but differ from the fireproof type in not having 245