Safety Experts Question Effectiveness of Popular Smoke Alarms
National News • July 24, 2006
When a jury this spring concluded a smoke alarm failed in a fatal upstate New York house fire, safety experts were already questioning whether popular models meet the threat posed by fast-burning ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: faulty smoke detectors
Posted On: July 24, 2006, 7:28 am CDT
Posted By: Joseph Fleming
Comment:
MY COMMENTS WILL BE IN CAPITAL LETTERS
Safety Experts Question Effectiveness of Popular Smoke Alarms
By Michael Virtanen
July 24, 2006
When a jury this spring concluded a smoke alarm failed in a fatal upstate New York house fire, safety experts were already questioning whether popular models meet the threat posed by fast-burning synthetic materials now common in American homes.
The federal court jury found the design of popular "ionization'' smoke alarms defective in the fire that trapped William Hackert Jr., 56, and his 31-year-old daughter Christine in their house near Albany in 2001. Survivors contended that First Alert and its manufacturing subsidiary BRK, which control 85 percent of the market, continued to make and sell millions of the cheaper ionization detectors despite knowing their disadvantages.
There are two common types of smoke alarms:
� Ionization alarms, which detect smoke with the help of radioactive material, sound earlier in fast-burning flaming fires.
� Photoelectric alarms, which detect changes in light patterns, sound earlier in slow smoky fires, which take time to transition to flames.
Under longtime national standards, either alarm is acceptable. Experts say both save lives, but the time needed to escape once flames start has gotten dangerously short, particularly for the disabled or impaired, because of fast-burning synthetics in furniture and carpets, and standards may need to change.
1ST - IT IS ACTUALLY QUESTIONABLE HOW MANY LIVES HAVE BEEN SAVED BY IONIZATION SMOKE DETECTORS. SINCE OVER 90% OF ALL DETECTORS IN USE IN AMERICAN HOMES ARE IONIZATION THEN WE CAN GUAGE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS BY LOOKING AT NATIONAL STATISTICS.
SMOKE DETECTORS SHOULD PROVIDE THE GREATEST BENFIT WHILE PEOPLE ARE SLEEPING AND THE MOST COMMON FIRE THAT KILLS PEOPLE WHILE THEY ARE SLEEPING IS THE SMOKING MATERIAL FIRE THAT STARTS OUT IN THE SMOLDERING MODE. THE STATISTICS SHOW THAT THE NUBER OF PEOPLE DYING PER 100 FIRE STARTED BY SMOKING MATERIALS HAS ACTUALLY INCREASED SINCE THE EARLY 80'S, EVEN THOUGH SMOKE DETECTOR USAGE HAS GONE FROM 20% TO OVER 90% DURING THE SAME TIME PERIOD.
2ND - ACCORDING TO THE USFA THE % OF PEOPLE DYING WHEN THE SMOKE DETECTOR OPERATES HAS GONE FROM 9% IN 1988 TO 39% IN 2001. BUT AN INCREASE IN THE SPEED OF FIRE GROWTH DUE TO A CHANGE IN MATERIALS CANNOT EXPLAIN THIS CHANGE BECAUSE MOST OF THE SWITCHOVER FROM NATURAL TO SYNTHETIC MATERIAL OCCURRED FROM THE 60'S TO THE 80'S. AS A CONSEQUENCE THERE HAS NOT BEEN MUCH OF A CHANGE IN MATERIAL SINCE THE LATE 80'S.
THE MOST LIKELY REASON FOR THIS INCREASE IS THAT IN THE MID 80'S UL FORCED IONIZATION MANUFACTURERES TO MAKE LESS SENSITIVE DETECTORS. SHORTLY AFTER THIS CHANGE UL ALSO ALTERED THE SMOLDERING TEST IN THE SMOKE DETECTOR APPROVAL STANDARD TO MAKE IT A LOT EASIER TO PASS. (THIS ALTERATION OF AN IMPORTANT FIRE TEST ALLOWED THE MANUFACTURERS TO STILL SELL THESE DESENSITIZED IONIZATION DETECTORS.) AS A CONSEQUENCE STARTING IN THE LATE 80'S THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A GRADUAL INTRODUCTION OF THESE INEEFECTIVE SMOKE DETECTORS INTO AMERICAN HOMES. IF MY HYPOTHESIOS IS CORRECT THIS FLAW IN THE IONIZATION DETECTOR COULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR30% OF ALL FATALITIES IN THE US.
Consumer Reports in 2001 recommended that homeowners install at least one ionization and one photoelectric alarm on every level of a house to improve warning times for different types of fires. An April report from the Public/Private Fire Safety Council went further, noting that some test escape times were "tight or insufficient'' with either alarm for bedroom or living room flaming fires. The group suggested that Underwriters Laboratories modify its standard to require faster detection of smoldering fires.
NOTE: IF THE ESCAPE TIME WAS TIGHT FOR FLAMING FIRES WHY ARE THE RECCOMENDING UL CHANGE THE SMOLDERING TEST?
IN ADDITION, HERE IS AN ACTUAL QUOTE FROM THE PPFC PAPER,
"REDUCED NUISANCE ALARM RATES (E.G., MODIFYING SMOLDERING AND FLAMING RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS IN UL 217 APPROVAL TEST, ENCOURAGING USE OF PHOTOELECTRIC SMOKE ALARMS, EDUCATING USERS IN PROPER PLACEMENT OF SMOKE ALARMS TO AVOID NUISANCE ALARMS FROM COOKING FUMES OR BATH/SHOWER STEAM);" (PAGE 15)
THIS ACTUALLY RECCOMENDS MAKING THE FIRE TESTSEASIER TO PASS SO THAT LESS SENSITIVE DETECTORS, THAT HAVE LESS NUISANCE ALARMS, CAN BE SOLD. THIS WULD REPEAT THE EARLIER MISTAKE THAT UL MADE AND IS MEANT TO HIDE THE NUISANCE ALARM PROBLEM THAT ION DETECTORS HAVE.
Current UL smoke alarm standards, first developed in the 1970s, require alarms to respond within 4 minutes of a flaming fire and in a smoldering fire before smoke obscures visibility by more than 10 percent per foot.
THE ORIGINAL SETTING WAS SET AT 7%. (IT WAS CHANGED TO 10% IN THE MID 80'S.) IN ADDITION, THE ORIGINAL DESIGNERS OF THE SMOLDERING TEST WARNED THAT IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS A "1ST GENERATION TEST" AND THAT FOLLOW-UP STUDIES SHOULD BE DONE TO INSURE THAT THE SMOKE USED IN THE TEST WAS APPROPRITAE FOR THE FURNISHING USED IN AMERICAN HOMES. WHY DID IT TAKE OVER 20 YEARS?
In today's homes, the tendency for synthetics � like nylon and polyester in furnishings, fabrics and carpeting � is to smolder for a long time, then burn faster than natural materials like wood and cotton, which char as they burn. Synthetics melt and pool, then give off substantially more energy when they burn, said Tom Chapin, head of UL's fire protection division.
That has shortened the time to "flashover'' � from first flames to combustion of the entire room due to accumulated heat and gases � from an average of 12 to 14 minutes 30 years ago to about 2 to 4 minutes now, Chapin said.
"In the flaming scenario, the escape times are radically shorter,'' he said.
ACCORDING TO THE SAME STUDY BY NIST THE TIME TO UNTENABILITY DURING THE SMOLDERING FIRES WAS APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AS 30 YEARS AGO. BUT IT IS IN THE SMOLDERING FIRES THAT THE IONIZATION DETECTOR IS FAILING TO GO OFF IN TIME. SO WHY IS SO MUCH TIME SPENT TALKING ABOUT HOW FIRES ARE GROWING FASTER?
The not-for-profit safety certification company in February began studying the smoke characteristics from 40 materials now commonly found in homes. Results are expected by the end of the year in the effort to make alarms more effective. Also under study are the byproducts of today's smoke, which can be lethal.
"We change our standards because of changes in technology and changes in the way people use things,'' said Chapin. He also pointed to an "unsettling'' uptick in U.S. fire fatalities in the past 12 months to a rate of about 3,500 annually.
One likely factor is the increasing use of candles as mood lighting. They now cause about 18,000 fires a year, triple the number five years ago, Chapin said. A factor that helped cut fatalities is a drop in smoking.
ACCORDING TO THE USFA CANDLES ONLY ACCOUNTED FOR 165 FATALITIES OR ABOUT 5% OF TOTAL.
The blaze that killed the Hackerts in the early morning of May 31, 2001, began with a frayed electrical cord behind the sofa that smoldered for some time.
"BRK had exclusive knowledge that sometimes in real world fires, sometimes these ionization detectors don't go off at all,'' said family attorney James Hacker.
The companies were ordered to pay widow Sheila Hackert $4.15 million in compensation and $500,000 in punitive damages.
The companies have filed motions for a new trial and to block the award. If that fails, they plan to appeal. Attorney James Heller said the family admitted disconnecting the batteries in some of their five smoke alarms, and he argued they had disconnected all of them.
"We were precluded by the judge from presenting evidence we believe would have convinced the jury,'' he said.
The companies make and sell both ionization and more expensive photoelectric alarms. Heller says the packaging for years has said that for maximum protection, homes should have both, or else combination alarms, which BRK also makes.
BUT THE PACKAGING ALSO IMPLIES THAT THE IONIZATION IS ADEQUATE, WHICH IS NOT TRUE.
Arthur Cote, executive vice president and chief engineer for the National Fire Protection Association, said 2004 data showed 96 percent of U.S. households had at least one smoke alarm. Civilian fire deaths dropped to 3,190 that year, down from 5,865 in 1977 when few homes had alarms.
IT SEEMS CLEAR THA THE NFPA IS CONCLUDING THAT SINCE DEATHS DECREASED AT THE SAME TIME SMOKE DETECTR USAGE INCREASED THEN THE DECREASE IS DUE TO SMOKE DETECTORS. THIS HYPOTHEIS IS EASILY TESTED,
1ST TEST - WHAT WAS THE DECREASE BEFORE SMOKE DETECTORS BECAME READILY AVAILABLE AND WHAT WAS THE DECREASE AFTER THEY HAD SATURATED THE MARKET?
THE ACTUAL DATA SHOWS THAT FIRE DEATHS WERE DECREASING BEFORE SMOKE DETECTORS WERE INTRODUCED AND FIRE DEATHS CONTINUED TO DECREASE AFTER SMOKE DETECTORS HAD SATURATED THE MARKET AT JUST ABOUT THE SAME RATE AS WHEN SMOKE DETECTOR USAGE WAS EXPANDING. AS A CONSEQUENCE IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE INCREASE IN THE USE OF SMOKE DETECTORS WAS CO-INCIDENTAL WITH THE DECREASE IN FIRE FATALITES NOT THE MAIN CAUSE OF THE DECREASE.
2ND TEST - WERE OTHER FACTORS INVOLVED?
THERE WERE MANY REASONS FOR THE DECREASE: BETTER MEDICAL TREATMENT, BETTER FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT, BETTER BUIDING CODES IGNITION RSISTANT FURNITIRE, REDUCTION IN SMOKING ETC. IF SMOKE DETECTORS WERE MAKING AN IMPACT ABOVE AND BEYOND THESE FACTOR FIRE FATALITIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO A MUCH LOWER LEVEL THAN HAS OCCURRED. THE TRUTH IS THAT IF THEY ARE NOT EFFECTIVE IN SMOKING RELATED FIRES (SEE ABOVE.)THEN HOW EFFECTIVE COULD THEY ACTUALY BE IN OTHER SMOLDERING FIRES?
About half the deaths still occur in the small percentage of homes without smoke alarms, Cote said. "Almost all of the time you find a 'failure,' the detector has been disabled,'' he said.
THE EXPERTS IN THE ARTICLE BEMOAN THE FACT THAT PEOPLE DISABLE THEIR DETECTORS BUT NONE MENTION THAT THE IONIZATION DETECTOR IS EXTREMELY SENSITIVE TO THE MOST COMMON TYPES OF NUISANCE ALARMS, THEREBY CREATING AN INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO DISABLE THEM. A PHOTOELECTRIC DETECTOR IS FAR LESS SUSCEPTIBLE TO NUISANCE ALARMS. TO QUOTE A PUBLIC HEALTH STUDY FROM ALASKA, " IN THIS STUDY THEY FOUND THAT AT THE END OF 6 MONTHS 19% OF THE HOMES WITH IONIZATION DETECTORS HAD DISABLED THE DETECTOR AND OVER 80% OF THE TIME THE REASON WAS THAT "IT GOES OFF TOO MUCH" WITH 93% OF THE FALSE ALARMS RELATED TO COOKING. ONLY 4% OF THE PHOTOELECTRIC DETECTORS WERE DISABLES AND NONE OF THE REASONS WERE RELATED TO NUISANCE ALARMS." SINCE HUD ALLOWS IONIZATION DETECTORS TO BE INSTALLED IN MOBILE HOMES, WHERE THE LAYOUT GUARANTEES THEY WILL BE NEAR A KITCHEN, WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE A PROBLEM AND WE DO. ACCORDING TO THE USFA OVER 80% OF THE FATALITIES IN MOBILE HOMES, WHERE THE OPERATION OF THE DETECTOR IS KNOWN, OCCURRED WHEN THE DETECTOR WAS DISABLED. WHY BLAME THE VICTIMS IN THESE CASES? WHY ISN'T HUD MANDATING PHOTOELECTRIC DETECTORS FOR MOBILE HOMES?
At the trial, plaintiffs discovered 750 written complaints since the 1990s from customers who said their ionization detectors didn't sound in actual fires, Hacker said.
First Alert requested all 750 smoke alarms back, almost half were sent, and they were tested, Heller said. "There were a small number of alarms that there were manufacturing issues or electrical issues, but the vast majority of them passed all the tests.''
WHEN THE MANUFACTURER AYS THAT THEY ALL PASSED THE TESTS, WHAT TESTS ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT? THE UL TEST THAT WERE MODIFIED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THESE FAULTY DETECTORS COULD PASS? DID THEY ACTUALLY PUT ALL OF THESE DETECTORS THROUGH A NEW SERIES OF FIRE TEST OR DID THEY JUST PUT THEM THROUGH SOME CALIBRATION TEST TOP SEE IF THEY WERE WORKING AS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED. DID THEY EVER QUESTION WHTHER OR NOT THE ORIGINAL DESIGN MIGHT BE FLAWED?
THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE FOR THE INSURABCE INDUSTRY BECAUSE IT IS CONTRIBUTING TO A LARGE LOSS OF LIFE AND PROPERY DAMAGE. I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET THIS ISSUE ADDRESSED FOR OVER 15 YEARS AND WOULD APPRECIATE SUPPORT FOR MY ATTEMPTS TO GET IONIZATION ONLY SMOKE DETECTOR OUT OF AMERICAN HOMES.
___
Subject: faulty smoke detectors
Safety Experts Question Effectiveness of Popular Smoke Alarms
By Michael Virtanen
July 24, 2006
When a jury this spring concluded a smoke alarm failed in a fatal upstate New York house fire, safety experts were already questioning whether popular models meet the threat posed by fast-burning synthetic materials now common in American homes.
The federal court jury found the design of popular "ionization'' smoke alarms defective in the fire that trapped William Hackert Jr., 56, and his 31-year-old daughter Christine in their house near Albany in 2001. Survivors contended that First Alert and its manufacturing subsidiary BRK, which control 85 percent of the market, continued to make and sell millions of the cheaper ionization detectors despite knowing their disadvantages.
There are two common types of smoke alarms:
� Ionization alarms, which detect smoke with the help of radioactive material, sound earlier in fast-burning flaming fires.
� Photoelectric alarms, which detect changes in light patterns, sound earlier in slow smoky fires, which take time to transition to flames.
Under longtime national standards, either alarm is acceptable. Experts say both save lives, but the time needed to escape once flames start has gotten dangerously short, particularly for the disabled or impaired, because of fast-burning synthetics in furniture and carpets, and standards may need to change.
1ST - IT IS ACTUALLY QUESTIONABLE HOW MANY LIVES HAVE BEEN SAVED BY IONIZATION SMOKE DETECTORS. SINCE OVER 90% OF ALL DETECTORS IN USE IN AMERICAN HOMES ARE IONIZATION THEN WE CAN GUAGE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS BY LOOKING AT NATIONAL STATISTICS.
SMOKE DETECTORS SHOULD PROVIDE THE GREATEST BENFIT WHILE PEOPLE ARE SLEEPING AND THE MOST COMMON FIRE THAT KILLS PEOPLE WHILE THEY ARE SLEEPING IS THE SMOKING MATERIAL FIRE THAT STARTS OUT IN THE SMOLDERING MODE. THE STATISTICS SHOW THAT THE NUBER OF PEOPLE DYING PER 100 FIRE STARTED BY SMOKING MATERIALS HAS ACTUALLY INCREASED SINCE THE EARLY 80'S, EVEN THOUGH SMOKE DETECTOR USAGE HAS GONE FROM 20% TO OVER 90% DURING THE SAME TIME PERIOD.
2ND - ACCORDING TO THE USFA THE % OF PEOPLE DYING WHEN THE SMOKE DETECTOR OPERATES HAS GONE FROM 9% IN 1988 TO 39% IN 2001. BUT AN INCREASE IN THE SPEED OF FIRE GROWTH DUE TO A CHANGE IN MATERIALS CANNOT EXPLAIN THIS CHANGE BECAUSE MOST OF THE SWITCHOVER FROM NATURAL TO SYNTHETIC MATERIAL OCCURRED FROM THE 60'S TO THE 80'S. AS A CONSEQUENCE THERE HAS NOT BEEN MUCH OF A CHANGE IN MATERIAL SINCE THE LATE 80'S.
THE MOST LIKELY REASON FOR THIS INCREASE IS THAT IN THE MID 80'S UL FORCED IONIZATION MANUFACTURERES TO MAKE LESS SENSITIVE DETECTORS. SHORTLY AFTER THIS CHANGE UL ALSO ALTERED THE SMOLDERING TEST IN THE SMOKE DETECTOR APPROVAL STANDARD TO MAKE IT A LOT EASIER TO PASS. (THIS ALTERATION OF AN IMPORTANT FIRE TEST ALLOWED THE MANUFACTURERS TO STILL SELL THESE DESENSITIZED IONIZATION DETECTORS.) AS A CONSEQUENCE STARTING IN THE LATE 80'S THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A GRADUAL INTRODUCTION OF THESE INEEFECTIVE SMOKE DETECTORS INTO AMERICAN HOMES. IF MY HYPOTHESIOS IS CORRECT THIS FLAW IN THE IONIZATION DETECTOR COULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR30% OF ALL FATALITIES IN THE US.
Consumer Reports in 2001 recommended that homeowners install at least one ionization and one photoelectric alarm on every level of a house to improve warning times for different types of fires. An April report from the Public/Private Fire Safety Council went further, noting that some test escape times were "tight or insufficient'' with either alarm for bedroom or living room flaming fires. The group suggested that Underwriters Laboratories modify its standard to require faster detection of smoldering fires.
NOTE: IF THE ESCAPE TIME WAS TIGHT FOR FLAMING FIRES WHY ARE THE RECCOMENDING UL CHANGE THE SMOLDERING TEST?
IN ADDITION, HERE IS AN ACTUAL QUOTE FROM THE PPFC PAPER,
"REDUCED NUISANCE ALARM RATES (E.G., MODIFYING SMOLDERING AND FLAMING RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS IN UL 217 APPROVAL TEST, ENCOURAGING USE OF PHOTOELECTRIC SMOKE ALARMS, EDUCATING USERS IN PROPER PLACEMENT OF SMOKE ALARMS TO AVOID NUISANCE ALARMS FROM COOKING FUMES OR BATH/SHOWER STEAM);" (PAGE 15)
THIS ACTUALLY RECCOMENDS MAKING THE FIRE TESTSEASIER TO PASS SO THAT LESS SENSITIVE DETECTORS, THAT HAVE LESS NUISANCE ALARMS, CAN BE SOLD. THIS WULD REPEAT THE EARLIER MISTAKE THAT UL MADE AND IS MEANT TO HIDE THE NUISANCE ALARM PROBLEM THAT ION DETECTORS HAVE.
Current UL smoke alarm standards, first developed in the 1970s, require alarms to respond within 4 minutes of a flaming fire and in a smoldering fire before smoke obscures visibility by more than 10 percent per foot.
THE ORIGINAL SETTING WAS SET AT 7%. (IT WAS CHANGED TO 10% IN THE MID 80'S.) IN ADDITION, THE ORIGINAL DESIGNERS OF THE SMOLDERING TEST WARNED THAT IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS A "1ST GENERATION TEST" AND THAT FOLLOW-UP STUDIES SHOULD BE DONE TO INSURE THAT THE SMOKE USED IN THE TEST WAS APPROPRITAE FOR THE FURNISHING USED IN AMERICAN HOMES. WHY DID IT TAKE OVER 20 YEARS?
In today's homes, the tendency for synthetics � like nylon and polyester in furnishings, fabrics and carpeting � is to smolder for a long time, then burn faster than natural materials like wood and cotton, which char as they burn. Synthetics melt and pool, then give off substantially more energy when they burn, said Tom Chapin, head of UL's fire protection division.
That has shortened the time to "flashover'' � from first flames to combustion of the entire room due to accumulated heat and gases � from an average of 12 to 14 minutes 30 years ago to about 2 to 4 minutes now, Chapin said.
"In the flaming scenario, the escape times are radically shorter,'' he said.
ACCORDING TO THE SAME STUDY BY NIST THE TIME TO UNTENABILITY DURING THE SMOLDERING FIRES WAS APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AS 30 YEARS AGO. BUT IT IS IN THE SMOLDERING FIRES THAT THE IONIZATION DETECTOR IS FAILING TO GO OFF IN TIME. SO WHY IS SO MUCH TIME SPENT TALKING ABOUT HOW FIRES ARE GROWING FASTER?
The not-for-profit safety certification company in February began studying the smoke characteristics from 40 materials now commonly found in homes. Results are expected by the end of the year in the effort to make alarms more effective. Also under study are the byproducts of today's smoke, which can be lethal.
"We change our standards because of changes in technology and changes in the way people use things,'' said Chapin. He also pointed to an "unsettling'' uptick in U.S. fire fatalities in the past 12 months to a rate of about 3,500 annually.
One likely factor is the increasing use of candles as mood lighting. They now cause about 18,000 fires a year, triple the number five years ago, Chapin said. A factor that helped cut fatalities is a drop in smoking.
ACCORDING TO THE USFA CANDLES ONLY ACCOUNTED FOR 165 FATALITIES OR ABOUT 5% OF TOTAL.
The blaze that killed the Hackerts in the early morning of May 31, 2001, began with a frayed electrical cord behind the sofa that smoldered for some time.
"BRK had exclusive knowledge that sometimes in real world fires, sometimes these ionization detectors don't go off at all,'' said family attorney James Hacker.
The companies were ordered to pay widow Sheila Hackert $4.15 million in compensation and $500,000 in punitive damages.
The companies have filed motions for a new trial and to block the award. If that fails, they plan to appeal. Attorney James Heller said the family admitted disconnecting the batteries in some of their five smoke alarms, and he argued they had disconnected all of them.
"We were precluded by the judge from presenting evidence we believe would have convinced the jury,'' he said.
The companies make and sell both ionization and more expensive photoelectric alarms. Heller says the packaging for years has said that for maximum protection, homes should have both, or else combination alarms, which BRK also makes.
BUT THE PACKAGING ALSO IMPLIES THAT THE IONIZATION IS ADEQUATE, WHICH IS NOT TRUE.
Arthur Cote, executive vice president and chief engineer for the National Fire Protection Association, said 2004 data showed 96 percent of U.S. households had at least one smoke alarm. Civilian fire deaths dropped to 3,190 that year, down from 5,865 in 1977 when few homes had alarms.
IT SEEMS CLEAR THA THE NFPA IS CONCLUDING THAT SINCE DEATHS DECREASED AT THE SAME TIME SMOKE DETECTR USAGE INCREASED THEN THE DECREASE IS DUE TO SMOKE DETECTORS. THIS HYPOTHEIS IS EASILY TESTED,
1ST TEST - WHAT WAS THE DECREASE BEFORE SMOKE DETECTORS BECAME READILY AVAILABLE AND WHAT WAS THE DECREASE AFTER THEY HAD SATURATED THE MARKET?
THE ACTUAL DATA SHOWS THAT FIRE DEATHS WERE DECREASING BEFORE SMOKE DETECTORS WERE INTRODUCED AND FIRE DEATHS CONTINUED TO DECREASE AFTER SMOKE DETECTORS HAD SATURATED THE MARKET AT JUST ABOUT THE SAME RATE AS WHEN SMOKE DETECTOR USAGE WAS EXPANDING. AS A CONSEQUENCE IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE INCREASE IN THE USE OF SMOKE DETECTORS WAS CO-INCIDENTAL WITH THE DECREASE IN FIRE FATALITES NOT THE MAIN CAUSE OF THE DECREASE.
2ND TEST - WERE OTHER FACTORS INVOLVED?
THERE WERE MANY REASONS FOR THE DECREASE: BETTER MEDICAL TREATMENT, BETTER FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT, BETTER BUIDING CODES IGNITION RSISTANT FURNITIRE, REDUCTION IN SMOKING ETC. IF SMOKE DETECTORS WERE MAKING AN IMPACT ABOVE AND BEYOND THESE FACTOR FIRE FATALITIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO A MUCH LOWER LEVEL THAN HAS OCCURRED. THE TRUTH IS THAT IF THEY ARE NOT EFFECTIVE IN SMOKING RELATED FIRES (SEE ABOVE.)THEN HOW EFFECTIVE COULD THEY ACTUALY BE IN OTHER SMOLDERING FIRES?
About half the deaths still occur in the small percentage of homes without smoke alarms, Cote said. "Almost all of the time you find a 'failure,' the detector has been disabled,'' he said.
THE EXPERTS IN THE ARTICLE BEMOAN THE FACT THAT PEOPLE DISABLE THEIR DETECTORS BUT NONE MENTION THAT THE IONIZATION DETECTOR IS EXTREMELY SENSITIVE TO THE MOST COMMON TYPES OF NUISANCE ALARMS, THEREBY CREATING AN INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO DISABLE THEM. A PHOTOELECTRIC DETECTOR IS FAR LESS SUSCEPTIBLE TO NUISANCE ALARMS. TO QUOTE A PUBLIC HEALTH STUDY FROM ALASKA, " IN THIS STUDY THEY FOUND THAT AT THE END OF 6 MONTHS 19% OF THE HOMES WITH IONIZATION DETECTORS HAD DISABLED THE DETECTOR AND OVER 80% OF THE TIME THE REASON WAS THAT "IT GOES OFF TOO MUCH" WITH 93% OF THE FALSE ALARMS RELATED TO COOKING. ONLY 4% OF THE PHOTOELECTRIC DETECTORS WERE DISABLES AND NONE OF THE REASONS WERE RELATED TO NUISANCE ALARMS." SINCE HUD ALLOWS IONIZATION DETECTORS TO BE INSTALLED IN MOBILE HOMES, WHERE THE LAYOUT GUARANTEES THEY WILL BE NEAR A KITCHEN, WE WOULD EXPECT TO SEE A PROBLEM AND WE DO. ACCORDING TO THE USFA OVER 80% OF THE FATALITIES IN MOBILE HOMES, WHERE THE OPERATION OF THE DETECTOR IS KNOWN, OCCURRED WHEN THE DETECTOR WAS DISABLED. WHY BLAME THE VICTIMS IN THESE CASES? WHY ISN'T HUD MANDATING PHOTOELECTRIC DETECTORS FOR MOBILE HOMES?
At the trial, plaintiffs discovered 750 written complaints since the 1990s from customers who said their ionization detectors didn't sound in actual fires, Hacker said.
First Alert requested all 750 smoke alarms back, almost half were sent, and they were tested, Heller said. "There were a small number of alarms that there were manufacturing issues or electrical issues, but the vast majority of them passed all the tests.''
WHEN THE MANUFACTURER AYS THAT THEY ALL PASSED THE TESTS, WHAT TESTS ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT? THE UL TEST THAT WERE MODIFIED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THESE FAULTY DETECTORS COULD PASS? DID THEY ACTUALLY PUT ALL OF THESE DETECTORS THROUGH A NEW SERIES OF FIRE TEST OR DID THEY JUST PUT THEM THROUGH SOME CALIBRATION TEST TOP SEE IF THEY WERE WORKING AS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED. DID THEY EVER QUESTION WHTHER OR NOT THE ORIGINAL DESIGN MIGHT BE FLAWED?
THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE FOR THE INSURABCE INDUSTRY BECAUSE IT IS CONTRIBUTING TO A LARGE LOSS OF LIFE AND PROPERY DAMAGE. I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET THIS ISSUE ADDRESSED FOR OVER 15 YEARS AND WOULD APPRECIATE SUPPORT FOR MY ATTEMPTS TO GET IONIZATION ONLY SMOKE DETECTOR OUT OF AMERICAN HOMES.
___