Page:The Scientific Monthly vol. 3.djvu/83

Rh

HE average annual loss by fire in America is over half as much as the cost of building the Panama Canal. This is an actual loss. Insurance, of course, restores nothing destroyed, but merely passes the hat for the benefit of the individual losers. The loss to the community is total. There are great benefits to the community from the payment of insured losses. It provides for the continuance of business with the least interruption and removes from individual losers much of the feeling of disaster and panic. This is of great moment to the community, but it does not repay to the community any of the loss actually incurred through the fire. It merely prevents still further loss from delayed recuperation.

But little thought has been given to the communal aspects of the economic system of fire insurance. It has been viewed chiefly from the standpoint of the individual. Insurance companies repay to individuals their actual losses and it is simpler for the individual to gain security against loss by fire by hiring an insurance company to carry his risks than it is for him to prevent loss from fire by building fireproof buildings. Indeed, experience has shown that "fireproof buildings" of the highest grade are not safe against great fires which have gained full headway and sweep in full force upon them from the outside. Fireproof construction of single buildings does not make them safe, if they are surrounded by burnable buildings. In the great Baltimore fire a heat of over 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit was generated, as was shown in three different regions when, after the fire, dentist's porcelains, fusible at that temperature, were found melted by the heat. The best fireproof construction does not protect a building from such temperatures. Marble crumbles; granite, especially if touched by water or its vapor, disintegrates; structural steel warps and twists.

After the Baltimore fire, there was in Baltimore much discussion of fire insurance and a little discussion of fire-fighting, but the author heard only one man mention the matter of fire prevention. Of course, from the standpoint of the prosperity of the country this matter of fire prevention was the one which should have received chief attention.

Two effective methods of protection against fires have been devised—first, fireproof construction and, second, automatic water sprinklers.