Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by raamdev 4414 days ago
> The same way that the fire department has to respond to every single fire alarm,

I discovered this isn't true, at least not in Lowell, MA (a bit north of Boston, MA). A few years ago I bought a 3-family rental property. There was a big blizzard that froze the badly insulated water pipes in the house, which resulted in the pipes bursting on the 3rd floor. That caused what amounted to a waterfall inside the 2nd and 1st floors.

When I arrived, the fire alarms were on. I was going to head down to the basement to turn off the water main but then I realized I had no idea where the water main was (I had just bought the house) and I figured that venturing into a dark basement full of water with live wires running everywhere probably wasn't the brightest idea.

So I called 911, explained the situation, and waited. They told me they'd "send someone". 20 minutes went by. The waterfall was still going. I called again. They told me they'd send someone. 10 minutes went back. I called a 3rd time and was told "they're busy clearing snow from fire hydrants around the city". I happen to be standing next to a light switch in the house and I happened to smell something that smelled like smoke. "But I smell smoke", I said to the dispatcher.

"Smoke?!", she replied. "We'll send someone immediately."

And within 3 minutes I had a dozen firefighters in the house.

1 comments

You reported a flooded building and they didn't send anyone. You then reported the hint of a fire and they sent out people very quickly.

Your anecdote seems to support the statement "the fire department has to respond to every fire alarm".

> When I arrived, the fire alarms were on.

And I explained that to the dispatcher.

A fire in a flooded building?
Sure, these are not mutually exclusive. Fire burns upward, heat rises. Water floods downwards. They won't cancel each other.