Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Reroofing

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I disagree that there is controversy.  I sense that there is a concern among
some of us that the "norm" may not be enough in some cases.  I think the
engineer should, if it is a public safety issue, raise the concern
regardless of the codes etc.  Codes are a "minimum standard" and do not
release the engineer of the responsibility to address any item that may be
of concern.

Thor Tandy  P.Eng  MCSCE
Victoria BC

-----Original Message-----
From: James Allen <allen(--nospam--at)>
To: 'seaint(--nospam--at)' <seaint(--nospam--at)>
Date: Thursday, April 15, 1999 11:20 PM
Subject: RE: Reroofing

Engineers do not and should not set the norm; they are employed to provide
designs that comply with the level or risk that society dictates. Society
via the elected officials chose the factor of risk. If more engineers
realized this there would be less controversy on this exhange.

James Allen, P.E.

From: Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)[SMTP:Rhkratzse(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 9:51 PM
To: ROgawa(--nospam--at); seaint(--nospam--at)
Subject: Re: Reroofing

In a message dated 4/15/99 12:19:59 AM, ROgawa(--nospam--at) writes:
>Since the code allows this activity,  I see no reason to
>get excited.  Change the code.

Is anyone else bothered by the attitude that "anything in the code is okay