They're a solved problem, solved by implementing fire codes.
Or, more to the point, as noted above, they're paid in blood. Each time enough people die in previously unforeseen ways, we come up with solutions in aggregate. Chesterton's Fence is apt here.
"Thinking of fires, for example - these used to be a major hazard, but their now more or less a solved problem, and a lot has changed since the fire codes were written. "
We're exactly talking about fire codes. But fair, let's talk about lumber stamps. How much weight can a random hunk of wood support? Under what conditions? Do you know? Probably not, different ways wood can be treated can dramatically affect how it behaves. How it's cared for (drying, etc) can also do the same. Both of those definitely contribute to flammability. Or just "Where did the wood come from? Is it from an area likely to have borer beetles, compromising any treatment?"
I mean, sure, if you pick through codes, there's probably cruft in there. I'm not foolhardy enough to say that everything is 100% based on modern understanding of materials science. But it's quite the reach to go from there to "Nah, let's get rid of them, they're in our way! Common sense will do just fine!"
Most lumber stamping is done by machine vision. If you've spent any time at a big box store that sells lumber you will realise how shitty lumber can be while still having that magical grade stamp. I've picked up 2x4s that break when you pick them up at one end but they still have a grade stamp and could be used in a structural wall because it bears the correct grade stamp.
For most stick construction you can clearly see a 2x4 or 2x6 will or won't support the load given the checking and knot size. Code, though, requires a grade stamp.
No we're not. That poster pointed out how fire codes helped, but that most codes do not. We're talking about building codes.
>But fair, let's talk about lumber stamps. How much weight can a random hunk of wood support? Under what conditions? Do you know?
None of those things have anything at all to do with stamps. That's the point. If the code specified lumber by strength it would be fine. But it specifies lumber by "you have to buy it from an approved member of the lumber cartel" and makes absolutely no mention of strength.
>Probably not, different ways wood can be treated
Building lumber is not treated. If you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, why throw out random nonsense?
> But it's quite the reach to go from there to "Nah, let's get rid of them, they're in our way! Common sense will do just fine!"
Nobody suggested that. Responding to silly strawman arguments is not constructive.
Or, more to the point, as noted above, they're paid in blood. Each time enough people die in previously unforeseen ways, we come up with solutions in aggregate. Chesterton's Fence is apt here.