Sweden Insists On Fire Alarms On Hotel Made Of Ice

from the that's-cold,-man dept

Wed, Nov 20th 2013 11:32pm — Timothy Geigner

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.

"We were a little surprised when we found out," hotel spokeswoman Beatrice Karlsson told The Local.

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.

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

89 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 12:12am

This is not a 'nanny-state' problem.

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 thread ]
Prisoner 201, 21 Nov 2013 @ 12:12am

I guess it could be because the smoke from a fairly small fire can kill you in your sleep, and even if the whole thing is ice it might be a good idea to wake up and leave the room if the nightstand is on fire or whatever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
toyotabedzrock (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 12:21am

There is a reason
They use plenty of very flammable bedding in structures that would allow smoke to build quickly.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 12:26am

Re: There is a reason
Yup, about to say that.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 1:16am

Re: Re: There is a reason
I wonder if they can even put many air vents in the building without compromising the structural integrity. If not then there is the worry that any fire will not only build up smoke, CO2 and CO but will also cause oxygen depletion by increasing the internal pressure of the building's atmosphere and 'chase out' the oxygen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 1:18am

Erm, yeah this isn't really that stupid. As noted, things in the hotel can catch fire even if the usual installations will not. A strong fire could potentially be even more dangerous than normal (fires in normal buildings wouldn't cause the floors and walls to quickly melt, for example) and so people might have less time to react before things become hazardous or structural integrity becomes compromised. Plus, the walls not being directly flammable doesn't mean that smoke inhalation and other hazards are suddenly removed from the equation, as others have noted above.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 1:21am

See, this is why the law is there in the first place
http://www.nfpa.org/press-room/reporters-guide-to-fire-and-nfpa/consequences-of-fire#fumes

"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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 1:25am

Got to agree with other posters, in fact when you consider that the building is made of ice there is probably a case to be made for more for detection than normal.

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 thread ]
Pete, 21 Nov 2013 @ 1:41am

Re:
I live in the far north of Sweden and have been to the Ice Hotel several times. Although your point about smoke inhalation is a conceptually valid concern, in practice it is a non-issue.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 2:13am

Re: Re:
This is not an non-issue.

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 thread ]
The Prick, 21 Nov 2013 @ 2:30am

Makes sense
It seriously makes sense to me to put fire alarms on a building made out of ice, provided that building contains flamable materials. I would like to hasten to add that people's clothing is a flamable material. Since people generally do not travel in public while nude, this means that people are kinda-sorta flammable.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 2:40am

Make the fire alarm out of ice? :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Prick, 21 Nov 2013 @ 2:42am

Re:
Techdirt's really been off it's game lately. It was good a few years ago (Though when the SOPA thing happened it got a bit obsessive I couldn't fault that). But these days it seems like every article is either about the NSA, sucks, or both >.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 2:55am

Re: Re:
Just curious - what specific NSA stories do you think that Techdirt should be ignoring, and which other stories do you think they should have been talking about instead? This particular story is a little silly, but it's not related to the NSA either so what else is there to be discussing that you think is being missed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Prick, 21 Nov 2013 @ 2:56am

Re: Re:
So, what's the current price of about 100 battery operated home smoke detectors?

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 thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 21 Nov 2013 @ 3:02am

Not Fire Alarms, But Smoke Alarms
The number-one cause of death in domicile fires is smoke inhalation. How much fire do you need to produce a deadly amount of smoke? Not much at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eaving (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 3:03am

As was said over and over and over again, I'm pretty sure your ice hotel is going to be well stocked on warm fuzzy blankets and while I don't know the exact number of warm fuzzy blankets you need to burn in a small room to die of smoke inhalation I have to suspect the number is pretty low. Sure we can all go 'fire in an ice building. Hur hur' but if we rephrase it 'not dying of smoke inhalation in your sleep' it seems rather a tad more reasonable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 3:31am

Re: Re: Re:
home smoke detectors are usually installed by drilling holes for their fixing screws into walls/ceilings...

i wonder how well would that go when one's walls and ceiling are made of ice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AM, 21 Nov 2013 @ 3:35am

Shame
You've let yourselves down here, Techdirt. I second most of the comments here, especially those that acknowledge most people die in fires from breathing smoke.

I'm taken aback by your shortsightedness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Violynne (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 3:37am

Re: Re:
First, I'm extremely disappointed this comment was flagged by the community as being "insightful", which just gave me reason to lose faith in the community... by a tad.

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 thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 3:57am

Re: Re:
"Although your point about smoke inhalation is a conceptually valid concern, in practice it is a non-issue."

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 thread ]
Andrew, 21 Nov 2013 @ 4:01am

Re: Re: Re:
So where do they put the smoke detectors? On the roof like everyone else? Or do they have to get their building assessed because of all the other differences between it and other buildings?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
martyburns (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 4:13am

Re: Re: Re:
becuase it is nice and warm for their lungs

I want what you're smoking!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 4:19am

Re: Re: Re:
"I read the article that I linked to (obviously) and rather assumed the commenters would as well."

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 thread ]
Frank, 21 Nov 2013 @ 4:30am

not just about a fire
It doesn't have to be about a fire at all. If it any kind of non-electric heat, there's a real risk of CO leak. No fire or smoke anywhere, but it can be just as deadly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 4:33am

I hate to say it, but anyone in a building made of ice should be very afraid of fire. It could cause the entire structure to collapse in on itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pete, 21 Nov 2013 @ 4:37am

Re: Re: Re:
Well, everybody is entitled to their opinion. I myself am happy to have fire alarms in every other type of building, both public and residential, and even have my own home wired directly to the Fire Station in case of an emergency.

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 thread ]
Niall (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 4:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
'Overseas' wouldn't apply to any EU nationals with reciprocal health service arrangements, and wouldn't be Swedes. We'd like to be pegged somewhere closer to you between the 'canny' Scandinavians and the numpty USAers please!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 4:50am

Concrete and Steel
You know what else doesn't burn very well? Concrete and steel. Therefore, concrete and steel buildings should be exempt from fire codes. After all, there's no way fire could be a problem in one of those. But of course, the nanny state will say otherwise.
/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pete, 21 Nov 2013 @ 5:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, realised my mistake after posting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
josh, 21 Nov 2013 @ 5:09am

sometimes the government does get it right�..sometimes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 5:24am

As several people here have noted, the greatest danger in any residential fire is smoke inhalation.

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 thread ]
Mike D, 21 Nov 2013 @ 5:27am

I disagree with over regulation too, but
This story is a stretch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 5:39am

Re: Re:
Don't like it?
Don't read it.

Simple really.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 5:43am

Re: Re: Re:
I'm not from Sweden, but I believe building code in the US states that any public service building must have a wired system such that an alarm in one room will set off all the other alarms. Not cheap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 21 Nov 2013 @ 5:49am

Well, Timmy, this bit of fluff pretty much "back-fired" on you.
When you've got even regulars writing "So this, despite Tim's assessment, is *not* a stupid decision."
Techdirt! When tired of substance, get fluffed here!

01:48:43[b-305-7]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 6:22am

Working in the oil and has industry we always place fire detectors in buildings. Which can be a little ridiculous. Crude oil basically requires a blow torch to ignite. The building is made from sheet metal.

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 thread ]
nonanymous, 21 Nov 2013 @ 6:31am

This is a stupid article just like most of them on this topic.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 6:35am

Re: Re: Re:
Enjoyment level is typically not strictly binary. You can like something enough to continue reading it but still feel it has significant room for improvement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 6:52am

We need to get Mike Masnick's opinion on this:

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 6:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
No idea but these questions highlights how building a house out of ice might completely change how it should be treated from a safety perspective.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 7:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"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."

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 thread ]
roarshock44, 21 Nov 2013 @ 7:05am

this certainly sounds ridiculous but may not be.

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 thread ]
Andrew D. Todd, 21 Nov 2013 @ 7:12am

A Potentially Deadly Icehouse Fire in 1913
You might look at Vilhjalmur Stefansson's _Unsolved Mysteries of the Arctic_ (1938). In the year 1913, Stefansson, an explorer/anthropologist in the Canadian Arctic, was nearly asphyxiated inside an Igloo. He was using a Primus gas stove, which was advertised as clean, so you could use it anywhere, to cook dinner, but he started feeling inexplicable "stoned," so he got the hell out of there, just in the nick of time. The Inuit method is to use firestones. You heat the stones to several hundred degrees in a fire _outside_, and then carry them into the Igloo, using a suitable tool made for the purpose. As Stefansson emphasized, over and over again, any attempt to impose white man's methods on the Arctic is a form of suicide. The only way to prosper in the Arctic is to go methodically native.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 7:15am

I wonder if they'd insist on ice alarms for hotels made of fire.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brazenly Anonymous, 21 Nov 2013 @ 7:18am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The argument actually has two levels of restrictions to overcome. First, deliberate arson is necessary to create a threat. Second, even with deliberate arson the damage will isolated to a single room, placing only the arson at any real risk.

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 thread ]
Wally (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 7:22am

Two words as to why fire alarms are needed in an ice castle..
Grease fire...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 7:23am

Re:
In general an "innkeper" is required to post emergency information in each room, often found convieniently on the back of the door.

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 thread ]
Brazenly Anonymous, 21 Nov 2013 @ 7:23am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's true that the risk is minimal, but it's also non-zero.

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 thread ]
nasch (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 8:00am

Even if
Even if the danger of a fire is so tiny as to be negligible, the correct course of action depends on how the regulation is written. If it doesn't have any allowance for the authority to make exceptions, then they have to enforce it, even for an ice hotel. You cannot have regulatory authorities ignoring laws when they decide it's not important enough. Obviously I don't know anything about Swedish law, but in general it seems like drafters of safety regulations aren't big on writing in discretionary enforcement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 8:25am

Re: Well, Timmy, this bit of fluff pretty much "back-fired" on you.
Why did you put backfired in quotes?

Also, do you know what it means to get 'fluffed'?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pete, 21 Nov 2013 @ 8:27am

Re: Even if
...and that is the issue behind this. The owner doesn't have any choice and must conform to the local authority's rules. Fair enough, so he must compromise somewhat on the interior aesthetics to conform to the ruling.

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 thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 8:35am

Re:
every such map should be developed such that up on the map is the direction the reader is facing.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 8:49am

So far the people argueing for fire codes are the people who either havent read the article or haven't been there.

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 thread ]
Jeremy Lyman (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 9:58am

Calm Down There.
Please. You all need to watch this documentary I found about a catastrophe at a hotel made of ice.

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 thread ]
nasch (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 10:03am

Re:
As long as it's done right, no risk of smoke inhalation or collapse is possible to the building from any contained fire.

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 thread ]
The Prick, 21 Nov 2013 @ 10:48am

Re: Re: Re:
I think techdirt should be ignoring the stories that are basically repeating a story that they told once before. Which feels like about a third of the NSA stories.

I don't like all the repeats, alright?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Prick, 21 Nov 2013 @ 11:02am

Re: Calm Down There.
Uh. This isn't a documentary, it's a spy thriller.

Oh! You were trying to be funny!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 21 Nov 2013 @ 12:19pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And most Americans don't smoke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 21 Nov 2013 @ 12:22pm

Re: See, this is why the law is there in the first place
The furniture is made of ice and they actually forbid taking cigarettes inside.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 21 Nov 2013 @ 12:24pm

Re: Makes sense
The building is not made of stone. It's made of ice. And flammable materials including cigarettes are strictly forbidden.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 21 Nov 2013 @ 12:25pm

Re:
Reindeer skins really don't burn all that well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RichWa (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 1:54pm

It's not the Fire
It's potentially dangerous gases that a fire could release. One can die of carbon monoxide, toxic fumes from a petrochemical curtain, etc without having a big fire or a spreading fire. Most people are long dead from the fumes given off during a fire before the fire reaches them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btrussell (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 4:11pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"...several dozen faggots..."

Would they be flaming? That could generate a lot of heat!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aaron Wolf, 21 Nov 2013 @ 6:35pm

Re:
Shame on you for being more of a computer than a human. Check out https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_using_our_practical_wisdom.html

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 thread ]
The Prick, 21 Nov 2013 @ 10:38pm

Re: Re: Makes sense
My argument remains unchanged. I used stone as an example because it's a more common building material, and because I cannot imagine people voluntarily going naked and leaving their flammable clothing behind in an ice building.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Prick, 21 Nov 2013 @ 10:40pm

Re: Re:
The article it's self disagrees with you stating that reindeer skins are, in fact, flammable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 21 Nov 2013 @ 10:45pm

Re: 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.

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 thread ]
Stranger, 21 Nov 2013 @ 11:12pm

Who would think...
Who would think that a small article about smoke detectors would be the most controversial article on techdirt this week.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2013 @ 11:12pm

Re: Re: Well, Timmy, this bit of fluff pretty much "back-fired" on you.
I think he meant 'chuffed'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2013 @ 12:01am

Re: #43
"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."

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 thread ]
BernardoVerda (profile), 22 Nov 2013 @ 12:13am

Re: Re: Makes sense
"The building is not made of stone. It's made of ice. And flammable materials including cigarettes are strictly forbidden."

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 22 Nov 2013 @ 1:29am

Re:
"We need to get Mike Masnick's opinion on this"

Why?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 22 Nov 2013 @ 1:33am

Re:
"So far the people argueing for fire codes are the people who either havent read the article"

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2013 @ 1:38am

Re: Re: Re:
All I can say is that Beatrice Karlsson is not only woefully ignorant of the mandatory requirements for all hotel furnishings in Sweden to be cigarette-proof, but also of the indigenous Sami culture from whom the bedding and seating ideas were taken.

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 22 Nov 2013 @ 1:39am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I think techdirt should be ignoring the stories that are basically repeating a story that they told once before. Which feels like about a third of the NSA stories."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2013 @ 5:56am

Re: Who would think...
Anytime someone (recklessly) mocks an issue of personal safety, people will respond vigorously to set the record straight.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2013 @ 11:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everything's flammable if you use enough fire.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Prick, 22 Nov 2013 @ 11:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pretty well actually, I've screwed things into ice before. You use woodscrews and a drill with a screw bit. Works pretty well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Prick, 22 Nov 2013 @ 11:17am

Re: Re: Who would think...
Haw, that's true. Hey that reminds me: Why the hell are buses not required by law to have seatbelts? Holy shit we need more nanny state up in that! All the schoolbusses I was on as a kid had no seatbelts! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2013 @ 11:48am

Re: Re: Re: Who would think...
I doubt that any bus in Israel will EVER have seat belts.

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 thread ]
nasch (profile), 22 Nov 2013 @ 12:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Who would think...
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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2013 @ 5:45pm

Re: Re:
because he is "editor-in-chief" of TD and is therefore responsible for the quality and integrity of the articles presented here.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Nov 2013 @ 6:01pm

Tim and TD, you write unthinking crap like this, then why would you expect us to take seriously anything else you write about.

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 thread ]
nasch (profile), 22 Nov 2013 @ 6:52pm

Re:
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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2013 @ 1:27am

Re: Re:
The comments section is for discussing the topic. It's not supposed to be a general-purpose gateway for launching angry tirades about why you hate Techdirt (but read it anyway).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 23 Nov 2013 @ 3:51pm

Re:
"Everyone spies, get over it". You can get a pair of video-recording sunglasses at Wal-Mart for $40.00. Just sayin'...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2013 @ 7:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would think...
More often than you'd think. Check here. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-us-bus-deaths-higher-than-feds-say/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 25 Nov 2013 @ 8:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would think...
More often than you'd 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 thread ]