• Categories

  • Pages

  • Archives

Backyard Danger: New Pool Regs (Including Alarm Installation Rules)

Posted on April 25, 2011 by Lina Maini
A boy in a children's swimming pool.

Image via Wikipedia

Each year, around this time,  we post the pool safety rules and regs.  It takes a split second for a child to be serious injured or worse in a pool.  Pools are supposed to be fun, let’s keep them safe.

According to data (compiled from various federal agencies and industry monitoring organizations), in a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.)

Below please find the full NYDOS amended text version of NYCRR Title 19 re: pool alarms. Feel welcome to contact BNI for our post pool/water-event checklist. There are often many variables involved in pool-related incidents. Our checklist has been developed over more than a decade of conducting these types of investigations.

TITLE 19 (NYCRR)

CHAPTER XXXIII – STATE FIRE PREVENTION & BUILDING CODE COUNCIL

SUBCHAPTER A – UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION & BUILDING CODE

1221.3. Swimming pool alarms. [amended text 12/14/2006]

(a) Purpose. Paragraph (b) of subdivision (14) of section 378 of the Executive Law, as added by Chapter 450 of the Laws of 2006, requires that the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (the Uniform Code) provide that any “residential or commercial swimming pool constructed or substantially modified after the effective date of this paragraph (December 14, 2006) shall be equipped with an acceptable pool alarm capable of detecting a child entering the water and of giving an audible alarm.” The Introducer’s Memorandum in Support of Chapter 450 states, in pertinent part, that “drowning is the second leading cause of unintentional injury-related deaths in children between the ages of one and fourteen nation wide, and the third leading cause of injury-related deaths of children in New York. . . . Technological advances have produced several different types of pool alarms designed to sound a warning if a child falls into the water. When used in conjunction with access barriers, these alarms provide greater protection against accidental pool drownings.” This section and section 1220.5 of Part 1220 of this Title are intended to implement the provisions of Executive Law section 378(14)(b).

(b) Definitions. The following terms shall, for the purposes of this section and for the purposes of section 1220.5 in Part 1220 of this Title, have the following meanings:

(1) Approved. Approved by the code enforcement official responsible for enforcement and administration of the Uniform Code as complying with and satisfying the purposes of this section and section 1220.5 in Part 1220 of this Title.

(2) Commercial swimming pool. Any swimming pool (as defined in paragraph (4) of this subdivision) that is not a residential swimming pool (as defined in paragraph (3) of this subdivision).

(3) Residential swimming pool. A swimming pool (as defined in paragraph (4) of this subdivision) which is situated on the premises of a detached one- or two-family dwelling; a multiple single-family dwelling (townhouse) not more than three stories in height; a one-family dwelling converted to a bed and breakfast; a community residence for 14 or fewer mentally disabled persons, operated by or subject to licensure by the Office of Mental Health or the Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities; a one-or two-family dwelling operated for the purpose of providing care to more than two but not more than eight hospice patients, created pursuant to Article 40 of the Public Health Law, and defined as a hospice residence in §4002 of said Law; a manufactured home; a mobile home; or a factory manufactured dwelling unit.

(4) Swimming pool. Any structure intended for swimming, recreational bathing or wading which contains or which is designed to contain water over 24 inches (610 mm) deep. This includes in-ground, above-ground and on-ground pools; indoor pools; hot tubs; spas; and fixed-in-place wading pools.

(5) Substantial damage. Damage of any origin sustained by a swimming pool whereby the cost of restoring the swimming pool to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the swimming pool before the damage occurred.

(6) Substantial modification. Any repair reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or improvement of a swimming pool, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the swimming pool before the repair, rehabilitation, addition, or improvement is started. If a swimming pool has sustained substantial damage, any repairs are considered to be a substantial modification regardless of the actual repair work performed.

(c) Pool alarms. Each residential swimming pool installed, constructed or substantially modified after December 14, 2006 and each commercial swimming pool installed, constructed or substantially modified after December 14, 2006 shall be equipped with an approved pool alarm which:

(1) is capable of detecting a child entering the water and giving an audible alarm when it detects a child entering the water;

(2) is audible poolside and at another location on the premises where the swimming pool is located;

(3) is installed, used and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions;

(4) is classified by Underwriter’s Laboratory, Inc. (or other approved independent testing laboratory) to reference standard ASTM F2208, entitled “Standard Specification for Pool Alarms,” as adopted in 2002 and editorially corrected in June 2005, published by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428; and

(5) is not an alarm device which is located on person(s) or which is dependent on device(s) located on person(s) for its proper operation.

(d) Multiple pool alarms. A pool alarm installed pursuant to subdivision (c) of this section must be capable of detecting entry into the water at any point on the surface of the swimming pool. If necessary to provide detection capability at every point on the surface of the swimming pool, more than one pool alarm shall be installed.

BNI Operatives: A step ahead.

As always, be safe.

Filed under: Safety | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Investigation Urban Myths Debunked

Posted on April 11, 2011 by Lina Maini
By Richard Wheeler (Zephyris) 2007. Lambda rep...
Image via Wikipedia

At social events or during casual introductions, invariably the question is raised (sometimes politely), “So, what do you do?”  Presumably, the person is requesting my career field information.

I’m dual-careered - investigations/security and animation development/production (proprietary property only) and occasionally, marketing (for clients as diverse as Domino’s Pizza to law firms to Sony).  This career combination may appear odd but it’s a personal balance.  Which field I initially disclose is based on the requestor’s behavior.  I tend to be more restrained on discussing the investigative field.  The reason?  Urban myths about private investigations.  Whether generated by common lore, CSI or playing junior detective at home (we’re all curious), the majority of non-investigative specialists really do believe that products, concepts and forensics methods,  exist in reality.  For that reason, I’m debunking one in each category today in Myth/Reality/Explanation format:

1. Untraceable cell phones.  NO SUCH THING.

We’ve all seen the ads for “throw-a-way” phones, “turn your electrical jack into an instant phone – no number necessary” and the latest hi-tech “soft phone” (software download that is run through your ISP.)   If law enforcement has the reason and can show cause – all of these untraceables are locateable.  Manufacturers know which numbers are shipped to specific stores, the electrical jack converter does have a hidden (from you) tracker and rule-of-thumb and common sense, if it is downloadable, it is traceable. The factors of whether l.e. decides to go through the effort depends on the case and cause.

2.  Unlocateable person.  FALSE.

(The following information does not  apply to certain people in law enforcement or under protective cover – although, they too can be flushed out, the expenditure – i.e.,  money and time –  is not usually individually undertaken.)

Every person leaves a trail – including when they go off the grid.  There is a lot of advice from so-called experts on how to hide your identity.  It is no longer possible, given our existence in the Information Age.

What can be done to cloud your whereabouts, assets and history is a) plant red herrings/false information, b) protect assets association (if you have to ask, don’t even try it. It can be done – LEGALLY – just hire an expert.) and c) employ a good, tech-savvy P.I. and/or reputation saver provider.  (Be very careful with the latter.  Ask for specifics on data for which they will search.  Provide as much info yourself.  Unless you have money to toss around or think this is a “test the investigator” game, you have to know why you want information withheld from the public.  You may not know which information will come back to haunt or trip you up or even that it is out there, but your investigator must be told the reason for your request.  A party photo of you holding a glass of wine is not a big issue if you realize your assets are being researched – but it can make one  heck of a difference in a child custody case.  Also, when the results of what amounts to your own background check are provided to you, request the identification of the sites, databases, deep drills… that returned a ”no hit” status.  What you think may be lurking out there just might be but you may have unwittingly misinformed your investigator.  Conversely, you want to ensure that information that is returned was run through a comprehensive investigative wringer.)

3. DNA is incontrovertible proof.  WRONG.

While extremely effective, forensics scientists have proven that DNA can be modified with false markers and it can also be manufactured.  There is always Option Three for those with true intent – plant their target’s DNA at the designated scene.

This is the proper forum to ask these questions.  And they are very welcome here. If any of our loyal readers have any questions on any other urban investigation myths, please, query as to your curiosity.  Either myself, an expert partner or contact will provide you with the truth – as we know, experience (we are actively in the field) and test it.  Ask away.

BNI Operatives: A step ahead.

As always, stay safe.

Filed under: background checks, cell phone, DNA | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

New Google App – Your Name, Address, Email… From Just Your Pic.

Posted on April 4, 2011 by Lina Maini
Image representing Google as depicted in Crunc...

Image via CrunchBase

You are sitting at a crowded cafe, chatting up a hottie sitting next to you.  Unbeknownst to either of you, the jealous stalking ex has taken a photo of the two of you.

Act I, Scene I

Several days later you arrive home to your spouse standing in the front doorway, fanning an 8×11 photo.  You wave, reach for a kiss and as you get close enough, you notice that you are in the photo – and another person (clue:  not a family member).

Scene II

Denial. Confusion. Silence.

Act II, Scene I

You return to the cafe and show the photo to employees there.  They recognize the second party in the pic although they deny you that person’s information on the grounds of intrusion of privacy.  You leave your cell number with the photo copy and ask that it be forwarded to the pic’s Party B.

Scene II

You receive a call from a stranger, confirming your photo partnership but seemingly and quite believably, this person has no idea how your personal information was obtained or in fact, who you are.

Act III, Scene I

Jealous ex is approached by Party B and admits to stalking, taking the photo and, via  Google’s new facial recognition technology, identifying Party A.  With said personal info, the stalker proceeds to intentionally, maliciously incite trouble for Party A.

By now, most of you are thinking, well of course the stalker is a fed or other law enforcement type.  Who else has access to facial recognition technology and the ability to combine that with address, phone and email databases?

According to a CNN news release on March 31, 2011, we all will have that capability very soon, given that Google has developed and will release to the public just such FR technology.  The world’s largest information aggregator has been gathering photos, emails, addresses… for years.  Now this information can be yours (or that of some psychotic ex client, former lover or scamming con artist) in an snap(shot).

The day after CNN released this information, Google simultaneously denied reproducing this data for a publicly avail FR app and that it is proceeding cautiously with this technology and allowing for people to “op-out” of its FR app.

CNN states the interview with Google wherein this FR app is mentioned was taped.

Regardless, I am sure we are all aware that we are living in a world where even the illusion of privacy has been completely shattered.

If Google (or any other entity for that matter) has this app and releases it to the general public, (and I am not a fan of “permissible purpose only”) there will be stalkings, kidnappings, rapes and murders occurring by virtue of this very tool.

Note to Google: Not a good idea.

Note CNN: Release the taped interview.  Lobbying against this grossest of privacy intrusions must begin NOW.

BNI Operatives: A step ahead.

As always, stay safe.

Related Articles

Filed under: Safety, security | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 186 other followers

%d bloggers like this: