Sweden Insists On Fire Alarms On Hotel Made Of Ice
from the that's-cold,-man dept
In these highly charged political times, you tend to hear the term "nanny state" thrown around quite a bit. Whether it's the mayor of a major US city lovingly playing psy-ops with citizens on vices like cigarettes and soda, or an otherwise sane nation keeping its citizens safe from the horrors of accurately depicted street view maps, the general impression is that the government in question doesn't think enough of its own people to allow them to live out their lives as they choose. And, while a simple stroll down the street might cause me to have some sympathy with their premise, most of us tend not to believe that our governments should be in the business of social-engineering our free choices (even though that's essentially the business they're in).
But sometimes a nanny state action moves beyond the mildly frustrating and into the realm of the hilarious. Reader btr1701 writes in about one such instance, in which the government of Sweden is engaging in some manner of performance art on the silliness of over-regulation by the government.
Sweden's Ice Hotel has been ordered by the National Housing Board to install fire alarms, despite being made completely out of frozen water. The Ice Hotel, which is rebuilt every year in northern Sweden out of enormous chunks of ice from the Torne River in Jukkasjärvi, Kiruna, will this year come equipped with fire alarms – and the irony isn't lost on the staff.Now, before your laughter at the concept of a hotel made completely out of ice being forced to install fire alarms reaches shart-inducing levels, it should be noted that some of the decorations in the hotel are not made of ice and could conceivably catch fire. On the other hand, one would assume that such a fire wouldn't be able to spread all that much, what with it being surrounded by ice and all. There might be some minor concerns about a small fire melting the ice-based construction and bringing the whole thing crashing down I suppose, but I'm of the belief that if you're planning on staying in a hotel made of ice, you probably know the risk of that happening anyway. Or you want to punish yourself, in which case a collapse would only be helping you out.
"We were a little surprised when we found out," hotel spokeswoman Beatrice Karlsson told The Local.
Regulations exist for a reason, but their blanket-style approach highlights their rigidity when an ice-house needs a fire alarm.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fire alarms, ice, regulations, sweden
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Safety regulations are there for a reason. Without doing a completely different safety study for a single building made out of a completely different material then the National Health Board has to insist that general safety regulations are followed.
Last time I checked smoke inhalation was still a health hazard by the way. How well is the Ice hotel vented? Well? Poorly? Can they even properly vent it? Doubtful otherwise the ice would lose it's nice defined shape by picking up the excess moisture that is introduced. Do people smoke in bed because it is cold? If there was a fire in a room how would you know which room if the person has passed out from over-drinking, smoke inhalation?
Shame on Techdirt for this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The amount of flammable material present in the Ice Hotel is near enough zero. Bedding is an insulating layer of reindeer skins over solid ice, atop which you snuggle into a flame-retardant sleeping bag. Now its next to impossible to set light to reindeer skin, you need something like a blowtorch to even make it smoulder... and at the ambient temperature inside the hotel, setting fire to the sleeping bag would be a challenge too - not that I can see anyone deliberately striking matches wearing mittens, whilst laying in their snug thermal bag.
Other than that the only flammable materials in the hotel are the suitcases visitors bring, and some of the overly-expensive vodka they serve at the bar. Neither of which is likely to produce enough smoke to even inconvenience a guest considering the high ceilings and large chamber sizes.
Risk of melting structurally significant amounts of ice is literally impossible. The blocks the hotel are made of are huge and it would require gallons of petrol to even make a dent in them.
Really, any chance of an accidental fire is infinitesimally small; and even if somehow a fire did start, the risk posed to others is negligible. So yes, this is a case of regulatory stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unless a safety study is performed for the building with specific details and the limits on what they are allowed to place inside the building and have those limits enforced then the health board will insist on standard safety regulations being followed.
In your scenario there is nothing to stop the hotel from adding more flammable material to the building otherwise.
Melting of the entire ice is not the problem. The problem that water over ice is very slippy and localised heat can melt part of the ice.
"
Really, any chance of an accidental fire is infinitesimally small; and even if somehow a fire did start, the risk posed to others is negligible. So yes, this is a case of regulatory stupidity."
So you admit that a fire is possible but it is negligiable 'because'.
" Neither of which is likely to produce enough smoke to even inconvenience a guest considering the high ceilings and large chamber sizes. "
As a previous comment pointed out, smoke hangs lower in cold atmospheres. As I pointed out the ice hotel might not even be capable of exchanging air with outside. This keeps it nice and warm but would cause smoke etc to build up within the building.
So no, it is not a case of regulatory stupidity. All different types of buildings have safety assessments. Unless this Ice hotel wants to pay to get their single building assested they can follow safety regulations made by people who actually know what they are doing.
Here is a quick scenario. Person has a few too many drinks to "keep out the cold". Person smokes while in bed becuase it is nice and warm for their lungs. Something catchs on fire, luggage or blankets or something. Person dies from smoke inhalation that can't be vented by the building.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I want what you're smoking!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However...
This case is that one exception.
Yes, a fire is 'possible' but only as a deliberate act of arson. To achieve it you'd need to deliberately bring the material you want to burn into the ice hotel. Since guests are strongly recommended to leave their luggage in the adjacent building's 'warm room' to prevent all the stuff from freezing, taking anything into your room is noticeable to staff... let alone several dozen faggots, some split logs and a jerry-can of petrol.
Though why anyone would travel to the very north of Sweden to attempt such a half-arsed arson attack is beyond me. The Swedes themselves stick to schools and giant straw goats...
http://observers.france24.com/content/20121221-christmas-gavle-goat-sweden-burnt
Inside the Ice Hotel accidental fires won't start from struck sparks (no suitable surfaces and too sub-zero), open flames (none allowed), dropped butts (again too cold and top-of-the-line retardant bedding, if smoking was permitted anyhow) or even faulty electrical devices (there are no electrical outlets).
As for asphyxiation, every room is well ventilated to prevent moisture build-up inside, which can cause frost from exhaled air to mar the crystal clear ice sculptures. So there is no chance of smoke depressing temperature inversions within.
Indeed none of the rooms even possess doors - sleeping chambers are closed off with thin curtains - which you might rightly point out are also combustible, but are located in positions where again they are impossible to set alight unless via deliberate arson, in which case (like all modern upholstery) they'd smoulder and any small amount of fumes produced would be insignificant due to the internal volume of the chambers and the ventilation.
Your scenario would be more likely to result thusly:
- Stupid person has too much to drink then goes out into the cold to see the aurora, passes out in a snowdrift and freezes to death.
- Average person has too much to drink, tries to light a cigarette and sets their gloves alight by accident. Goes to hospital.
- Clever person has too much to drink, takes off gloves to light cigarette, then is thrown out of hotel for breaking the strict no smoking laws.
- Very clever person has too much to drink, cunningly retreats to room for a secret smoke, draws curtain, removes gloves, snuggles into sleeping bag and falls asleep mid-puff. Butt drops onto either reindeer furs or sleeping bag, fails to ignite either. Person wakes up with frostbite and pays three huge bills, the first for charring damage to the bedding, the second a fine for breaking Swedish law, and the third for his overseas medical bills for the frostbite treatment - I say overseas as no Scandinavian would be sooo damn stupid as to try to smoke in a hotel bed in the first place!
To help you folks understand how unlikely any sort of fire, let alone a serious one is, here's a few shots of what it looks like inside...
http://cdn.home-reviews.com/2011/07/unique-ice-hotel-in-sweden-4.jpg
http://sites.uci.edu/jb log/files/2013/01/Ice-Hotel-Restaurant.jpg
http://www.hotelclub.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/i cehotel1.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So Arson is possible then. You should have a fire alarm.
So everything flammable is in one room? Sounds like a good place for a fire to start.
"Inside the Ice Hotel accidental fires won't start from struck sparks (no suitable surfaces and too sub-zero), open flames (none allowed), dropped butts (again too cold and top-of-the-line retardant bedding, if smoking was permitted anyhow) or even faulty electrical devices (there are no electrical outlets)."
You are only arguing that a fire is less likely, not that is impossible. Also laptops etc don't require electrical outlets.
The rest of your entire argument can be summed up as: Fire is less likely so zero precautions are necessary.
Of course there is no safety audit for a building made (mostly) of ice, hence the Health board is going with their best judgement and insisting on the minimum safety measures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The amount of damage necessary for fire to become an issue in an environment that already requires substantial additional precautions, would render the warning of a smoke alarm rather ineffective. Alarms that give false positives regularly will be ignored. A case needs to be made for the inclusion of the alarms, not the other way around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would they be flaming? That could generate a lot of heat!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Since, seriously, I suspect that's all they need to suit the legislation. One for each room, and a few for the main rooms and halls. Compared to the costs associated with the running of the hotel, that's gotta be pretty cheap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
i wonder how well would that go when one's walls and ceiling are made of ice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Second, as many stated, your opinion is on the presumption that a fire would never break out, and if it did, it wouldn't affect much.
That's utter nonsense. If someone brought something in that suitcase which, if burned, presented toxic smoke, that is a legitimate and viable threat.
While I certainly won't dismiss your probability, it's still just that: a probability.
While I served in the military, I learned there are many more things harmful than an actual fire. Fumes and heat (especially by burning magnesium) are more major threats than a flame.
So this, despite Tim's assessment, is *not* a stupid decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thank you for chiming in here. I read the article that I linked to (obviously) and rather assumed the commenters would as well. Guess I was wrong....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I read the link. It was an opinion piece from a political blog that contained no real extra information. The linked back to thelocal.se, which admitted both that there were flammable materials in the building and that the hotel isn't particularly bothered about following the rules:
"Karlsson at the hotel isn't concerned about the new changes, and admitted that it was just a matter of adaptation."
If the hotel isn't bothered about the changes required, then why is anyone else? It's true that the risk is minimal, but it's also non-zero. So why the fuss over something that even your original link notes would come across far more stringent building restrictions if it was in the US?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the risk of the alarm system shorting out and causing damage is also non-zero. Given the unique environment, the short is probably a greater threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The answer is obviously that someone should have just had the wisdom to make an exception knowing full well that an exception in this case would not be a precedent for any other exception arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If we could trust bureaucrats to make the right decision all the time, we wouldn't need regulations to begin with. The rules can't be "buildings must have safety features A B and C unless the inspector decides they're not necessary" which is what you're suggesting. Besides the problem of varying levels of competence and wisdom, it would practically guarantee corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a reason
Further, you can't run on ice and if it melts it may crush you. They tend to use very elaborate shapes that would be unstable if part of it melted away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is a reason
And I'll add that the electric blankets and so on adds to the danger of catching fire too. Plus that unlike ordinary buildings, buildings made with ice is more likely to suffer structural damage (melt) on fire therefore people live inside will have lesser time to run.
I second that it doesn't sounds "too much free time" to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There is a reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It might sounds silly, and you could argue that the fire is far less likely to spread than in a standard construction, but it makes sense if public safety is your main concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See, this is why the law is there in the first place
"Most fire deaths are not caused by burns, but by smoke inhalation. Often smoke incapacitates so quickly that people are overcome and can’t make it to an otherwise accessible exit. The synthetic materials commonplace in today’s homes produce especially dangerous substances."
"Lighted tobacco products — almost always cigarettes — are the leading cause of fatal fires in the home, causing 700 to 900 deaths each year. They are the leading cause of fire deaths in any location, in the United States and every other country where sufficient data is collected. Typically, abandoned or carelessly discarded smoking materials ignite trash, bedding or upholstered furniture. Most fatal smoking-related fires start in the living room, family room or den, rather than the bedroom."
So unless this hotel has no furniture or they actually forbid taking cigarettes inside then yes fire can happen and it can kill people without burning anything down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: See, this is why the law is there in the first place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The colder the building the lower the smoke may sit.
One could say your article is portly thought out knee jerk stuff, I expect better from you really, leave that sort of stuff to fox news and the like please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't like all the repeats, alright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree. Most of the new stories are based on new revelations, new data, new actions taken by the people involved in the story or new quotes by those people and those related.
True, a lot of the stories cover the same ground, but should they be ignored just because they're happening a lot? This is an ongoing story and as an opinion blog rather than a primary news source, TD can only look at what's available when it's available.
"I don't like all the repeats, alright?"
Fair enough. But, to my memory, this is how the site has always worked. Sometimes it's repeated discussion on DRM, business models, patents, Aaron Swatz, SOPA, NSA - whatever the current subject of most interest is. If you don't like reading them, skip to the next one. I'm sure other stories will take precedent if people aren't clicking on the stories they don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Don't read it.
Simple really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes sense
So any building with people in it contains flammable materials and should have a smoke detector, unless people are only allowed to enter the stone, furnatureless building while nude, and then you should have a smoke detector near the large pile of clothing outside the door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Makes sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Makes sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Makes sense
And why, exactly, do you suppose such things are forbidden?
After all, the ice-hotel is soooo safe.
And if you've ever worked in any sort of service industry job (including hotel, staff accommodation, student accommodation or residential program) you would appreciate that just because something is "against the rules" doesn't mean nobody will do it (and in fact, often the subterfuges employed to circumvent the rules are even more problematic than whatever was banned in the first place).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Fire Alarms, But Smoke Alarms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If reindeer skins were flammable, then I don't think the Sami would have been using them to sleep upon right next to the fire, inside their lavvu tents (also made from reindeer skins for thousands of years), else every stray spark from the fires would have created a death trap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shame
I'm taken aback by your shortsightedness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not just about a fire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Concrete and Steel
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless the total amount of flammable material in a room is substantially less than that required to produce a dangerous quantity of carbon monoxide, then smoke/fire alarms MUST be installed, period. (Kerosene heaters and gas ovens regularly kill scores of people without setting the house on fire)
The idea that any fire would always be self-extinguished by melting ice - before high levels of CO are reached - is not only a dangerously foolish theory, but highly unlikely.
Sorry, Techdirt, but you blew it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree with over regulation too, but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, Timmy, this bit of fluff pretty much "back-fired" on you.
Techdirt! When tired of substance, get fluffed here!
01:48:43[b-305-7]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, Timmy, this bit of fluff pretty much "back-fired" on you.
Also, do you know what it means to get 'fluffed'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well, Timmy, this bit of fluff pretty much "back-fired" on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The chance of fire is basically on par with your ice hotel.
Thing is, fire detection technology is cheap compared to the costs of killing someone.
Why take the chance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The danger of fires is not just flames, but also smoke. Smoke kills more people than actual burning fire and it doesn't matter what the hotel is made of for the smoke to occur in dangerous amount.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A. Are smoke alarms a reasonable safety precaution in *any* hotel?
*OR*
B. Is it not only unnecessary, but something that would spoil the novelty and daring of sleeping in a building made completely of ice?
Disclaimer: I was nearby when hundreds of people were killed and injured in the MGM Grand Hotel fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He should of stoped this article before it was posted..
TD has dropped another few levels of integrity, well into the negative numbers now.
But not unexpected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my issue is with building fire exit maps that are required to exist but not required to be turned the direction a panicked reader is facing. that's nuts. in a fire, you don't have time to study a map calmly and discover its orientation. every such map should be developed such that up on the map is the direction the reader is facing. that is not a requirement, at least where i've been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Any guest is required to review that emergency information prior to inhabiting the room.
If you leave it to the "panicked reader" stage; well you only have yourself to blame...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So basically you need to "get in the map" like Joey on Friends in order for it to make sense to you. Got it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUK8UXwX4dc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #43
I've noticed that myself, and it really bugs me.
The official response is generally that guests/visitors (even employees) should check out the posted map at the beginning of their stay -- and that it's THEIR responsibility to do so.
Personally, I find that response distinctly inadequate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Potentially Deadly Icehouse Fire in 1913
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two words as to why fire alarms are needed in an ice castle..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even if
Yet the very fact that it became a story in the Swedish media is indicative as to how superfluous most people think the rule is in _this particular case_. If folks thought it was sensible or necessary, it would never reached the papers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice.
There's nothing burnable in those rooms, you get the sleeping bag and reindeer skin. Melting the ice is NOT an issue, for those who keep bringing up the structural integrity of the ice. As long as it's done right, no risk of smoke inhalation or collapse is possible to the building from any contained fire.
I don't know about many of you, but in my big concrete and steel buildings, everything is layered in carpet, the walls are made of flammable materials and plastics, doors are wood, etc. This is a building made of ice, there is not stuff that is non-ice everywhere. That's the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wouldn't it be best to assume things are not being done right? That way if you're wrong then someone has incurred some extra expense. If you assume it's being done right and you're wrong, people could die. That's basically the whole point of safety regulations: we don't trust businesses to do everything right on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since I wasn't answered before - why do you make this assumption? Does the reality that people have done so but reached a different conclusion pain people so much?
"There's nothing burnable in those rooms"
Then why does the original source state:
"There are indeed things that can catch fire"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calm Down There.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246460/
What will a few smoke (and probably water) alarms hurt? Nothing that's what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Calm Down There.
Oh! You were trying to be funny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not the Fire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who would think...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who would think...
In this case, the author completely neglected to recognize the primary purpose of hotel smoke alarms -- which is saving sleeping people from smoke inhalation, rather than preventing the building from burning down.
It's in the issue of public safety why there are rules and regulations for all kinds of things that people often don't agree with -- from seat belts to helmets ... to even condoms (thank you Anna Ardin).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who would think...
Also most city busses don't either.
All humor aside, I think it's a seriously major issue and don't understand why people don't protest in the streets regularly about how bus companies apparently don't care enough about their safety to install a few hundred dollars worth of anchors and straps in each bus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who would think...
As far as mounting smoke detectors in ice, there's no need to drill holes and install screws. Just spit and press. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who would think...
Because it's not a seriously major issue. Buses rarely get into accidents worse than a fender bender because A) (I hope) bus drivers are trained better than your average driver and B) they're enormous and so other drivers notice them. Secondly, even if they are in an accident, odds are it will be with a vehicle that weighs much, much less, so the acceleration (in the physics sense) of the bus (and so its passengers) will be small. Therefore, not much need for seatbelts.
The exceptions are buses driving (sorry, careening) off of mountain roads, and buses colliding with tractor trailers or other very large vehicles. Neither of which happens very often, at least in the US. Or if it does I'm blissfully unaware. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would think...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would think...
About 200 deaths among bus riders in a 6 year period is at most a statistical blip compared to total motor vehicle deaths in the US (per year, let alone over six years). So I would still say it is a very rare occurrence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As some (your regular readers and fans too) have noted, TD has degraded significantly recently, its the place to go for a laugh about whatever is upsetting you NSA, Prenda and whatever else,, people are sick of it.
You written about NSA so much no one here can form their own opinion, and it appears TD has no opinion, just endlessly dribbling on about the same issues over and over and over and over and over and over again!!!
After 10 times people have shut down on the issues they are not interested in what you are saying because it is what you are always saying, you just keep saying the same things over and over and over and over and over and over again.
See how that gets annoying fast ??
I liked the Australian response to accusations of spying..
"Everyone spies,, get over it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you hate it so much, why do you still read it? I almost wish I had so much time on my hands that I found it worthwhile to read blogs I don't like. But not quite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]