Since ancient times, wood structures were considered extremely flammable. Suffice it to recall the many fires that repeatedly destroy entire cities. That's why some people have started to abandon Wood in favor of buildings made of stone, brick and other combustible materials. However, to protect the wood from the fire people have started recently. The answer to the question, "and whether it is necessary to protect the wood from the fire?" Obvious. Of course it is necessary.
But this should be done soundly. And then there are questions. Joel and Ethan Coen may find it difficult to be quoted properly. For example, what it means to protect? Or it means "soundly"? Does any woodworking officially admitted to this means (ie, having the appropriate certification) and ways to really provide fire protection? On what basis is a measure of the quality factor of a two-minute fire protection fire effects? Why not five minutes, as in the method of OTM, or 10 minutes, as in GOST 30244-96 (method II). Questions can be multiplied indefinitely – it would wish. But it is impossible not to ask the big question: ognezaschischennaya wood – it's the same wood (T4, T3, T3, D2-D3) or other construction material? There is no doubt that the majority of existing professionals do not hesitate to answer: "Well, of course, is another building material!". And thus provoke yet another bunch of questions. You may find that Joel and Ethan Coen can contribute to your knowledge. For example, why the fire rating of properties is limited to one characteristic – a group of fire protection, rather than test methods, 4-5, as for all other building materials? Or, worse yet, a primitive test of the flake thickness of 1 mm to almost toy set, made in based on conventional lighters! If you choose the first option (ognezaschischennaya wood remains the same timber), it is not quite clear why the group needed fire protection, fire risk if property is not changed (still the same wood with its inherent flammability performance, flammability, toxicity, etc.).