Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If you asked me whether I would want to pay 5x more for a house that reduces my likelihood of dying in a fire from 0.00427% to 0.00104%, I think I would choose to roll the dice (and maybe DIY install a $20 smoke detector).

1950: 6,405 fire deaths / 150,000,000 US pop = 0.00427%

2022: 3,490 fire deaths / 335,000,000 US pop = 0.00104%



These are guesses but I think the main reduction in fires from 1950 to 2022 are:

a) better electrical wiring and circuit provisioning. Overloaded outlets or circuits were more common in the 1950s. Fuses could also be tampered with more easily than circuit breakers.

b) Matches everywhere. You had matches in the kitchen for lighting the stove, and around the house for lighting cigarettes. "Kids playing with matches" was a common cause of fires. You don't hear about that nearly as much today.


More points:

Basically everything is soaked in flame retardant: your insulation, your wiring, your furniture, your appliances.

Heater technology is way safer now. Central heat is a lot more prevalent, and space heaters are a lot less likely to start a fire.

I'd also add to your wiring point: electrical appliances are way safer and way less hot.

A counter-argument though is the prevalence of lithium-ion batteries. I do wonder if a spike in fires is coming--though I would've expected it by now.


> I do wonder if a spike in fires is coming

Arguably came and left. In the early 00s battery pack explosions in cell phones wasn't a super rare event. Now Li batteries are a lot safer with better protections to keep fires from starting. Additionally, the biggest batteries someone is likely to setup for their homes are LFPs which are quiet resistant to starting fires. If sodium batteries are successful they'd go even further in being a non-issue.


c) Smoking

In 1950 around 50% of adult males smoked, these days it is closer to 15%


Why tie it to half the population (in an ideal world)? Just list per capita.


A good number of females also smoked, so the overall percentage of adults was higher than that.

"Smoking in bed" was such a common cause of fires that even in elementary school we were taught "never smoke in bed."


And why they have to be lined with retardants


I think that many rural homes were still in the process of getting electricity around 1950 and that there were some that still used kerosene lamps for lighting.


Also improvements in medicine might matter


Death is not the only negative outcome of a house fire.


Death is a well tracked statistic and a severe and fairly distinct outcome. Other statistics might not be as available or accurate.

Similarly the murder rate is a more accurate than other crime rates. Burglaries, muggings and assaults are often not reported to police whereas violent deaths almost always are.


Sure, I agree.

Gred's post however strongly implies that the only outcome worth considering is death. That might be true for them, but I'm not sure if that applies broadly.

Speaking from experience, losing your house to a fire is traumatic, expensive, and you lose things that can't be replaced. Even when there are no deaths.


No but eating McDonald’s or drinking alcohol kill more yet we do it anyways


How is this related to the conversation? I'm not sure what point you're making.


The point is the risks of health/economic issues from home fire is something most Americans would gladly have for reduced housing price.


Are you sure it's a 5x difference in material?

Like, a big reason for fires in the 50s was paper covered and underspeced wiring.

Safe wiring simply uses plastic instead of paper.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: