Posted on 07/31/2010 9:18:02 AM PDT by Go_Raiders
Inspired by Albany Fire Chief Marc McGinn's passion and four years of research, City Council members voted unanimously Monday night to require a somewhat uncommon type of smoke alarm in many homes and businesses in the city from this point forward.
In doing so, Albany became the first city in California, officials said, to take a public stand on the importance of photoelectric-only alarms, which use a light source to detect the presence of smoke, in saving lives. Ionization alarms, which use a different trigger, are much more common.
Albany joins the state of Vermont in requiring photoelectric alarms. Vermont has banned, from new buildings, ionization alarms, which use a small amount of radioactive material to detect invisible particles generated by flame and are found in 95 percent of homes in America. Massachusetts, Iowa and Maine require the use of either photoelectric alarms, which can be combined with traditional ionization alarms, or alarms with both kinds of sensors.
One other California city, Cathedral City just southeast of Palm Springs, approved an ordinance that went into effect in 2008 that required dual sensor alarms, two city officials said Tuesday.
The Albany ordinance requires the use of photoelectric-only alarms and detectors in a range of situations, such as with new construction, in multi-family dwellings or with certain home improvement projects.
"We've been handcuffed with ionization smoke alarms," McGinn said. "From here on out, it will be an all-out assault to get rid of them. The Fire Department will have a door-to-door campaign to get people to upgrade to photoelectric. It's a huge undertaking. But, for me, it's a race against the clock to make this change. I could never live with myself if something tragic happened because of an ionization alarm."
Ionization alarms are by far the most common, McGinn said, largely because they are cheaper by roughly $10. (Photoelectric alarms sell for $15 to $20, while ionization alarms sell for $10 to $15, he said.)
But ionization alarms are much more responsive to flame than they are to smoke. And by the time a fire has engulfed a structure in flames, McGinn explained, it's often too late to save lives – both because of the severity of a fire and because smoke inhalation could already have caused death.
Visually the two alarms are hard to distinguish. On the back, one has an "I" or a radioactive signal to indicate "ionization"; photoelectric alarms have a "P" on them.
"Otherwise, you couldn't tell the difference at the store," McGinn said at a City Council meeting earlier this month.
You could tell the difference, however, in the kitchen, as ionization alarms result in frequent "nuisance alarms" in response to smoke from the toaster or burning food while cooking. Because of this, many people disconnect these alarms to avoid being bothered.
According to a July 6 staff report on this issue, "The disconnection of smoke alarms (because of nuisance alarms) is responsible for at least 50 percent of the fire deaths in America, or 1,500 deaths per year."
(One visitor to Monday night's meeting, Dean Dennis of Ohio, said up to 22 percent of these alarms are disabled within a year because of the nuisance alarm rate. Dennis has been advocating against these alarms since 2003 after his daughter died in a fire. Her death, he believes, would have been prevented had photoelectric alarms been in place.)
Though the two alarms are hard to tell apart in the store, in an emergency their distinctions could mean the difference between life and death, say advocates for photoelectric alarms.
A high percentage of fire-related deaths, 25 to 30 percent, are caused by smoldering fires and the resulting smoke inhalation. Ionization alarms can take an average of 37 minutes longer to react to smoke than photoelectric alarms, McGinn said.
Much of the confusion about these alarms stems from the fact that both are certified as safe by Underwriters Laboratories, a company considered by many to be the gold standard for safety. The company describes itself as a "trusted resource across the globe for product safety certification and compliance solutions."
It is one of two agencies, along with the National Fire Protection Association, whose approval is required for all smoke alarms in Albany according to its Fire and Building Code.
Howard Hopper, the San Jose-based manager of regulatory services for Underwriters Laboratories, attended Monday night's meeting to insist both alarms are safe.
"Either technology is good," he said. "You don't know what kind of fire you're going to have."
An advocate for alarm manufacturer Kidde also attended the meeting to speak about the effectiveness of both alarms. Having both types, said Mikhael Skvarla of Sacramento, "is the best way to make sure you have the coverage you need."
But critics of ionization alarms dismissed these assertions.
Dennis, the Ohio father who lost his daughter in 2003, said he was "appalled" that the men had come, and said their only purpose was in protecting industry profits.
"We want to protect your kids, protect your families, protect lives," Dennis told the council, in reference to the goal of several photoelectrics advocates in attendance.
Advocate Doug Turnbull, also of Ohio, flew in with Dennis to attend the Albany meeting. The two visit fire chiefs around the nation to try to explain the differences between the two types of alarms, and are working to try to have ionization alarms banned in Ohio.
Turnbull's daughter, Julie, died in April 2005 in an off-campus fire near Miami University in Oxford, OH.
"The house she was in had 17 ioniozation alarms. Eleven were recovered.... Only one sounded," he told the council. "It was already too late. Three kids died in that fire. By the time the first one sounded, they were already dead."
Dennis met Turnbull at Julie's funeral, which he attended because of the similar circumstances between the two girls' deaths. The fathers started studying the smoke alarm issue when a Boston fire chief told them to look into it.
"We had no idea what photoelectric was," Dennis said. "We took it upon ourselves to study this issue. We probably spent 20 hours a week for two years going through thousands of pages for thousands of hours."
World-renowned fire protection engineer Richard Patton, of Citrus Heights, CA, who said he worked on the "first fire protection code ever produced," said tests done to prove the safety of ionization alarms are inherently flawed, as smolder tests done in the lab don't reflect real-life situations such as a cigarette setting a counch on fire.
"This is why we have the confusion of why the smoke detectors don't go off and fail (in actual emergencies), and why they do go off in the laboratory," he said.
Albany residents Brian Parsley, Ray Anderson and Francesco Papalia spoke in support of the chief and the ordinance, as did all members of the City Council.
Councilman Robert Lieber, a nurse, said he was surprised to feel emotional about the issue as he recalled shifts in the burn unit while working for decades in hospitals and emergency rooms.
"In a house fire, fatalities are not from burning up. They're from smoke inhalation," he said.
Vice Mayor Farid Javandel said the council needed to take a stand to protect consumers.
"The average consumer is looking for the best deal. Ionization is cheaper... we've gotta take steps to push people to use the more costly alarm. You're talking about the safety of your family. I'm not going to quibble over a few dollars," he said. "It's critical to not have alarms that are going to be deactivated or miss out on certain fires."
The new ordinance requires the use of photoelectric alarms, but allows ionization alarms to be used in conjunction with them. Dual-technology alarms, with both kinds of sensors, are prohibited in certain cases outlined in the statute.
Installation of photoelectric alarms in Albany, according to the July 19 staff report on the alarm ordinance, "would be required when structures are expanded, when renovation construction exceeds an established threshold, or when a property is sold or when a home business is established. It also would require photoelectric systems in multi-family apartments. Staff proposes that a construction value of $5,000 be established as the threshold to trigger the upgrade requirement."
All required smoke alarms and detectors "shall be replaced upon the expiration of the warranty period of the installed device." At that time, according to the ordinance, "Replacement devices must be photoelectric-only type devices."
Fire Chief Marc McGinn said he was "very proud of our City Council" and that "the right thing was done."
He said consumers could simply purchase the new alarms and screw them into the ceiling in place of existing alarms, and that the Fire Department would offer assistance to the disabled or others needing help.
For him, he said, the Albany ordinance is a first step.
"We're the only city in California to have this," he said after the meeting. "My push is to get all of California, and then all of the United States, educated on this issue."
Dozens of children and adults have been killed because of smoldering fires that poisoned them in their sleep while the ionization alarm sat silently by. THOUSANDS of people die every year because their ionization smoke alarms have been disabled, most often because of nuisance activation during cooking or fireplace use. Photoelectric smoke alarms do not have these defects.
If you care about your life and the lives of your loved ones and children, you should make sure to add a photoelectric detector in your home TODAY. After that, it would be an act of human decency for all of us to help find a way to take this viral. Please post a link on your blogs or in your signature blocks and taglines to:
http://www.theworldfiresafetyfoundation.org
Taking my own advice and changing my tagline.
Please help save lives.
How does one tell what one has?
On the political front, this should be between the homeowner and their fire insurance company. If these are such a great benefit, the insurance company would require them, or provide incentives.
Bookmark
New Childrens’ game:
CALIFORNIA, MAY I?
L
Ok, I am confused.
In one part of the article it says it takes on average 37 minutes for the old style alarms to work and in another part of the article it says people disconnect them because they go off when making toast. It does not take 37 minutes to toast toast.
The fire department is going to send fire firefighters door to door to make mandatory inspections of peoples homes. This is going to end badly.
Now if they want to make this ruling, they could easily say if a permit is taken out - new alarms. When the owner of the property or rental changes hands - new alarms.
Great question.
Visually the two alarms are hard to distinguish. On the back, one has an “I” or a radioactive signal to indicate “ionization”; photoelectric alarms have a “P” on them.
If you’ve ever had a nuisance alarm because of using a fireplace or toaster or cooking where you couldn’t see the smoke, then you almost certainly have ionization.
The vast majority of battery only home smoke alarms are ionization. Smoke alarms should be replaced every ten years in any case, so if you have one that’s that old, it’s worth the peace of mind to replace with a new photoelectric.
At the store, they are easier to distinguish from the packaging labels. I haven’t checked yet, but I suspect low end retail like WalMart may not carry photoelectric.
>>But ionization alarms are much more responsive to flame than they are to smoke.
Why does my ionization detector alarm whenever I cook something in the oven and forget to turn on the vent fan? (Yeah, I know. I need to clean my oven more often!) Mine seems to be too good at detecting smoke—even smoke I can’t see.
I’m in the process of getting the funds to buy alarms to be given away by the fire dept. Up to this point I was looking at the Kidde P19000 which is a dual sensor unit. It’s my understanding if one alarm in a home is triggered they all sound. Through the non-profit program they’ll cost $20.16 each.
Will a photoelectric sensor detect both types of fires?
The different types detect different types of fire. I believe the ionization alarms work better with kitchen fires, and the photo ones work better with cigarettes left on the couch types.
I don’t smoke so I’m happy with ionization alarms. A mix in the house or dual type alarms would give the best protection.
Sounds like leftovers from the anti-nuke lobby.
Panic, Panic. They’re RadioooooActive. Panic. Panic.
The Fire Chief in Albany is going over the top, I agree. Just remember he is working in an environment where smoke alarms are required by State Law, so all he can do is try to make sure people get an alarm that will actually save them.
This is a matter of personal choice, but your choice has been distorted by manufacturers, an industry group and the federal government colluding in a deception that these things work.
People don’t die from making toast. Ionization detectors go off when you make toast because of particles you can’t see. Smoldering fires kill you because of two things that CANNOT be detected be an ionizing alarm, carbon monoxide and larger smoke particles.
That is why this issue is so insidious, they’ve tricked you into thinking you have a smoke detector, when what you have is a flame detector that also detects toast. When you get annoyed at the alarm because of the toast and remove the battery, now you are completely defenseless, leading 25 to 35% more fatal home fires than would otherwise occur.
I believe every State has home smoke alarm requirements.
If you’re gonna have one, why not choose one that doesn’t kill people?
I had to get rid of my expensive PE alarm because it was giving constant false alarms, perhaps caused by lingering dust. I don’t want to discourage others from installing them, but I am reluctant to try another.
This is such a BS article. Ionization detectors will go off at the drop of hat from a steamy bathroom near it to a toaster toasting bread or an oven or range cooking something just a little too well.
This is such an emergency! Oh my! Hurry and change to a photoelectric without thinking it through. Sooooo many people die with ionization detectors that there are definable statistics to prove this emotive emergency. Give me an effing break. I want to see some hard numbers that have independently verified between the performance of the two types of detectors.
All I can see is that my Leftist detector is going off the scale with this story.
Home smoke alarms are one of the few Government success stories.
Tens of thousands of lives have been saved worldwide, at very low cost. However, that still leaves a blind spot where thousands are dying needlessly.
This of it this way. Wouldn’t you buy a good smoke alarm for your family regardless of what the Government requires?
The article grabs our attention because of the intrusion, but the underlying fact is people need to know they are being deceived about ionization smoke alarms.
Please see Post 14. Photoelectric alarms don’t have that shortcoming.
Photoelectric detects both kinds of fires, ionization is faster for something like a Christmas tree, but there is not enough difference in response time to be a factor in survival.
If there is an ionization component, it will be susceptible to nuisance alarms from cooking, fireplace use, etc. This results in about 22% of the alarms being disabled by the occupant within the first year (removing the battery).
That is why Albany’s fire chief is against using ionization alarms at all, because of the disabling. Personally, I think having one photoelectric only will at least prvide one alarm that is less likely to be taken offline.
God bless you for helping provide smoke alarms for those in need.
Why on earth do people accept statistics from government staff reports?
By the time staff reports make it through the political editing process, they are typically nothing but erroneous opinion cloaked in filtered citations and outer-limit assumptions.
.
I would urge you to have at least one photoelectric. Smoky electrical fires are very hard for ionization to detect, so unless you unplug your TV, dishwasher, refrigerator and other appliances at night, you are still at risk.
And all this time I thought they were due to fire.
We just got new PE detectors and when I messed up the microwave popcorn last night (plenty of smoke) they didn’t go off. I was happily stunned.
Did the article say anything about problems with the isotopes?
Do you understand that the reason for this action is because the appliance fails to work as advertised?
You won’t find anyone more pro-nuclear than me, although I admit I hate the current default reactor design in the US.
“This is such a BS article. Ionization detectors will go off at the drop of hat from a steamy bathroom near it to a toaster toasting bread or an oven or range cooking something just a little too well.”
Go to http://www.theworldfiresafetyfoundation.org and watch the aquarium test video. The detector that see toast just fine sits silently immersed in smoke from a sofa cushion for a half hour.
ionization detectors work fine on the things they can see, they do not work at all on smoldering synthetics.
That certainly disagree with my ionization-based smoke detectors. I would even say that their tests are rigged. I want to see independent, verified data.
I changed all mine out a couple years ago to COMBINED photoelectric and ionization to catch BOTH smoldering smokey fires as well as open flame fires. It didn’t cost much to upgrade to P+I compared to P alone or I alone. Gives me more peace of mind. Harder to find, but worth it.
Only thing I regret is not buying the wireless units that communicate so, if one alarm detects a fire, they all sound off.
Since there is no logical reason to ban the cheaper alarms, there must be a hidden agenda. Perhaps it is something $impler than the greenies.
Why on earth do people accept statistics from government staff reports?
The statistics in question come from private insurance corporations, the National Fire Protection Association and numerous other sources.
In several surveys over the past two decades, they found that about one-fourth of dwelling occupants will admit to disabling a smoke detector within the first 90 days after installation.
This is complete BS. The least little bit of smoke from cooking bacon in my kitchen will set off the ionization alarm in my hallway.
LOL.
A significant number of these 1,500 deaths would have been prevented if they had a working smoke alarm. Many fewer would be disabled if they were not as prone to nuisance alarms.
The deaths I would really like to prevent are those where a smoke alarm is installed, but fails to detect the smoke from a smoldering fire. That is inexcusable, because the manufacturers have long known of this shortcoming.
We removed the batteries from all our smoke alarms.
The risk of injury from fire is not high enough to justify the false alarms, etc. I’d worry more about being killed in an auto accident.
Heck, I ride a motorcycle and bicycle commute. Life is risk.
Mandatory inspection,i.e. complete unwarranted search of your home by government officials.
What a nation of whiners and wusses America has become.
Yes it is. LOBBYISTS for manufactures! Politician needs reelection funds and manufacturer needs to “force”(New laws for the safety of the people) more products on to the consumer.
No, I won't think of it that way. It's an unwarranted Government intrusion. Get your mind right.
people need to know they are being deceived about ionization smoke alarms.
By whom?
No offense, but 1500 is virtually statistically zero in a population of 300,000,000. It also does not take into account the types of homes, etc., where the fires took place. If one creates a subset of the 1500 that happened in homes similar in construction and environment to their own, I wonder what the number would be.
Do you live in a cheap apartment complex with a meth lab? I’d get a smoke detector. If not, I’d worry more about slipping in the bathtub.
I consider smoke detectors a complete wast of money, and an incredible annoyance.
I’ve also gone on record that we could cut our fire departments by 2/3. I have friends that are firemen. Virtually all they ever respond to is false alarms and auto accidents. The days of the Chicago fire are in the distant past.
“I would even say that their tests are rigged. I want to see independent, verified data.”
Coming right up:
“In a peer-reviewed, 3-year study conducted by Dr. Larry Grosse at Texas A&M University, it was concluded that the chances of dying in a smoldering fire while in a home protected with the ionization type smoke detectors was 55.8%. That is right; you have more chance of dying than living through the fire. I bet that is not what you expected when you bought your smoke alarms, was it?”
Read more: http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/Your-Smoke-Detectors-Will-Probably-Not-Work-In-Time-/825576#ixzz0vHYrO0FJ
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution No Derivatives
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14390291/Smoke-Detector-Technology-Research-Chief-Jay-Fleming
>>Mandatory inspection,i.e. complete unwarranted search of your home by government officials.<<
It is not constitutional and could not possibly stand up. At least not with the current SCOTUS.
Please see post 14. Cooking bacon will not kill you.
According to peer reviewed literature, with an ionization detector your chances of dying in your sleep if a smoldering fire occurs are 55.8%.
Ours goes off all the time for no apparent reason...I’d dearly love nothing more than to smash the misbegotten thing. Forget cooking, it’ll go berserk multiple times a day for the whole time it’s above 85F here. Hot sun on the roof above it, nothing more.
“The risk of injury from fire is not high enough to justify the false alarms, etc. I’d worry more about being killed in an auto accident.”
Photoelectrics are far less subject to nuisance alarms.
May God watch over you. Me, I have two kids, I’m protecting them with an inexpensive effective photoelectric smoke and carbon monoxide alarm. I have had zero nuisance alarms in the past 5 years, and it’s right outside the upstairs bathroom.
By whom?
By the manufacturer. They call their device a smoke alarm, but ionization detects invisible particles from some types of combustion, not visible smoke.
If the smoke from a fire is the wrong type, it doesn’t set off the detector. The manufacturers are currently getting the pants sued off them, but in the meantime, they still make money off of a defective product.
If you don’t want an alarm in your home, there is no government agency on earth that is going to change that. Pardon me for suggesting you might make a personal choice to protect yourself and your loved ones.
**If you’re gonna have one, why not choose one that doesn’t kill people?**
The operative word in your statement is ... CHOOSE. I’ve had it with all these NANNY STATE requirements.
You’ll probably find the pusher has a vested Interest in the company that MAKES the damn things. always FOLLOW THE MONEY!!
Smoke is composed of particles both visible and invisible. Therefore the description by the ionization type manufacturers is accurate.
The manufacturers are currently getting the pants sued off them,
Ah yes, the John Edwards School Of Product Liability Law no doubt. Shocking you would support such an obvious rip off.
I actually have both types in my home along with CO detectors. And here's a news flash for you: I didn't need a law to get me to do it.
You Big Government types are all the same. No matter what it is it's "for the children."
OK... I’ll bite...
you either SELL, Build, Service or own the Company... RIGHT???
>>You’ll probably find the pusher has a vested Interest in the company that MAKES the damn things. always FOLLOW THE MONEY!!
I agree. The so-called World Fire Protection Assoociation is just a shill for the photo-electric smoke detectors. There is nothing else on their web site about any other kind of fire safety. I’m sure that the lawsuits are just another ambulance chasing scam in NZ and we’ll soon be seeing their commercials in the US. (”If you or a loved one was injured or killed in a fire in a home with a smoke detector, even if you disabled it yourself, call 1-800-GET-CASH today.”)
“Home smoke alarms are one of the few Government success stories.
Tens of thousands of lives have been saved worldwide, at very low cost. However, that still leaves a blind spot where thousands are dying needlessly.”
So are seat belts, but seat belts become air bags, and decapitate children, not to mention being expensive as hell - and thus inhibiting people from getting rid of their old, dangerous cars (i.e., with brakes and steering falling apart).
So infant car seats become required for all infants in airplanes (soon), and the price of a family flying from New York to Chicago goes up accordingly (and may double of they have two infants). So they drive and get killed on I-80 in Pennsylvania.
So smoke alarms morph into sprinkler systems, driving up the cost new housing and keeping people in older houses, with EXTREMELY dangerous wiring.
In all cases, the price per life saved is EXTREMELY high. In the case of airplanes, it was determined that EXACTLY one life would have been saved in a 10 year period if junior were in a car seat - the rest of the cases he either got out alive or died with everyone else. This takes away funds that could be used much more effectively to save lives other ways (like rebuilding I-80, or keeping it cheap for junior to fly on a plane). But no one bothers with that equation, because some survivor is on a quest to DEMAND that everyone pay for their grieving (and corporate America joins them, when they see profits in that).
Going to photoelectric may be just fine and make sense, but the above reasons are why people on this space are SUSPICIOUS and want numbers, when they hear the newest “sky is falling” crusade.
I’ve been a firefighter for over thirty years, ran a PubEd section for five. Either type of smoke detector works.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.