Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ban Ionization-type Smoke Detectors?  
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6493 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3545 times:

Here in the United States, the ionization-type smoke detector is the most popular type, since they are less expensive than photoelectric or dual-sensor alarms. However, there are major issues with the ionization type, both in effectiveness and environmental impact.

Companies such as First Alert/BRK and Kidde talk about the pros and cons of each type. While ionization-type smoke detectors are quicker at detecting fast flaming fires, studies have actually shown the difference is insignificant between photoelectric and ionization alarms. On the other hand, photoelectric smoke alarms do a far better job at detecting slow smoldering fires, in fact, there was a lawsuit against First Alert/BRK in the late 90s/early 2000s about their ionization detectors FAILING to detect slow smoldering fires. This lawsuit almost put First Alert/BRK out of business.

In addition, in higher elevations, ionization-type smoke detectors tend to be even less effective. This is often overlooked by many homebuilders here in New Mexico as ionization-type alarms are cheaper.

Another drawback to ionization-type smoke detectors is that they contain the radioactive element Americium, which is an environmental hazard. Also, there have been reports of some people using the americium from smoke alarms to create dirty bombs.

So, I think that there should be a ban against ionization-type smoke detectors. What does anyone think?


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8873 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3530 times:

I still have photo-electric detectors working well after many years. I test them on a regular basis, never failed. I hate the Ionization type, I have replaced them many times, not fast either when tested, prone to false alarms also. I have to give credit to Lowes, they have given me a new one many times, no questions asked. The few that lasted near the stated life, are few and far between. Are there still Photo- Electric's for sale in the US?

[Edited 2011-05-23 17:58:06]

[Edited 2011-05-23 17:58:39]


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3514 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
So, I think that there should be a ban against ionization-type smoke detectors. What does anyone think?

I don't know where you got all that info but it sounds like you're buying into the usual media fear mongering.  

This is the most flawed part:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):

Another drawback to ionization-type smoke detectors is that they contain the radioactive element Americium, which is an environmental hazard. Also, there have been reports of some people using the americium from smoke alarms to create dirty bombs.

Americium is an extremely week radioactive element. Do you really think the government would allow them into households if they were actually a hazard? You're life would be more in danger if you overdosed on vitamin D compared to eating the Am in the detector. Not to mention the radiation is completely shielded, and even if it wasn't', all it would take to shield it would be a sheet of paper. That's how weak it is.

But don't take my word for it:

http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog....irty-bomb-plot-smoke-detector.html

There's plenty of other non dramatized sources around. Google it.


User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3629 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3504 times:

The only thing I don't like about Ionization-type is that they are more prone to false alarms, especially when dealing with steam from bathroom. Other than that I don't see a problem with them. The "radioactive" material is not dangerous at all as far as I know.

User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3490 times:

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 2):
Americium is an extremely week radioactive element. Do you really think the government would allow them into households if they were actually a hazard? You're life would be more in danger if you overdosed on vitamin D compared to eating the Am in the detector. Not to mention the radiation is completely shielded, and even if it wasn't', all it would take to shield it would be a sheet of paper. That's how weak it is.

This is not the only reason I am calling for a ban, the main reason is because they are ineffective against slow smoldering fires, which are just as important as fast flaming fires. Therefore, with ionization-type alarms, you are only half protected.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 1):
Are there still Photo- Electric's for sale in the US?

Yes, you can easily find them online. Also, Costco (at least in my area) now sells photoelectric alarms exclusively, probably due to the elevation issues with ionization-type alarms.

[Edited 2011-05-23 18:17:01]

[Edited 2011-05-23 18:19:19]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8873 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3474 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 4):
Yes, you can easily find them online. Also, Costco (at least in my area) now sells photoelectric alarms exclusively, probably due to the elevation issues with ionization-type alarms.

I will check that out, thanks for the information.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21571 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3427 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 4):
This is not the only reason I am calling for a ban, the main reason is because they are ineffective against slow smoldering fires, which are just as important as fast flaming fires. Therefore, with ionization-type alarms, you are only half protected.

So let people be half protected if they want to be. No need to ban anything.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3421 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
So let people be half protected if they want to be. No need to ban anything.

Of course, nobody intentionally wants to be half-protected. It is simply that unaware consumers base their selection solely on price, as ionization type alarms are generally cheaper. There should definitely be some action taken on products that don't work as advertised, especially if they can result in fatal consequences.

Everyone should read this:
http://www.taylormartino.com/product...oke_alarms/smoke-alarm-lawsuit.cfm



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21571 posts, RR: 55
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3415 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 7):
It is simply that unaware consumers base their selection solely on price, as ionization type alarms are generally cheaper.

So then the appropriate response is to put out the information on why a certain type of detector works better than the other, not to outright ban a certain type.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3340 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 7):

Everyone should read this:
http://www.taylormartino.com/product...oke_alarms/smoke-alarm-lawsuit.cfm

Seriously? A lawyer's website? What an unbiased source of info.  
Quoting Mir (Reply 8):

So then the appropriate response is to put out the information on why a certain type of detector works better than the other, not to outright ban a certain type.

IMO The real solution is people should research before they buy, rather than buying the cheapest thing on the shelf. But I guess the average Joe couldn't be bothered  


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3299 times:

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 9):
Seriously? A lawyer's website? What an unbiased source of info.

Why would he be biased? These are actual statistics, not some fairy tale that a lawyer would fabricate. The manufacturers should be held responsible for wrongful death to many people due to ionization-type smoke detectors not working as advertised.

The packaging of these smoke alarms state the benefits of both types of alarms, however, they do not specifically mention how much faster one type of alarm would respond to a certain type of fire. While ionization-type alarms respond more quicky to fast flaming fires, the difference in time is insignifcant, and a photoelectric alarm would still respond in a reasonable amount of time where you can safely escape. For slow smoldering fires, however, an ionization-type alarm could take 15 to 30 minutes longer to respond than a photoelectric alarm, and may not even respond at all in some cases. With synthetic materials making up more of today's furniture, this is especially important, since these materials can produce toxic fumes when burning. In truth, ionization-type smoke detectors should really be called fire detectors.

Three states have already banned ionization-type alarms in new buildings: Massachusetts, Iowa, and Vermont. There really is no reason why all other states shouldn't follow.

Here is what I at least recommend to everyone:
If you home only has ionization-type alarms, replace one of them on each floor with a photoelectric alarm. Keep in mind that most newer homes have the alarms interconnected, so for compatibility, make sure that the photoelectric alarm that you buy is the same brand as the ionization alarms in your house.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21571 posts, RR: 55
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3291 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 10):
Why would he be biased?

Because he makes his money going after smoke detector companies.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 10):
These are actual statistics, not some fairy tale that a lawyer would fabricate.

And if you read them, the conclusion that he draws is completely unsupported - unless the statistics differentiate between types of smoke detectors, trying to claim that one type of alarm is at fault is utterly bogus.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3268 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
And if you read them, the conclusion that he draws is completely unsupported - unless the statistics differentiate between types of smoke detectors, trying to claim that one type of alarm is at fault is utterly bogus.

He states that 95% of all smoke alarms installed in the U.S. are ionization-type, while only 2.5% are photoelectric type, therefore it is safe to imply that the type of smoke alarms installed in these homes are ionization-type.

The fact is, banning ionization-type smoke alarms could save thousands of lives yearly. Why wouldn't you be for saving lives? Clearly, you are the one who is biased.

[Edited 2011-05-24 18:27:41]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3246 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 12):

The fact is, banning ionization-type smoke alarms could save thousands of lives yearly.

Oh ok. So using your logic we should then ban all cars on the road now with no airbags, ABS, ESP, defrosters, etc etc because that would save lives too     

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 12):
Clearly, you are the one who is biased.

Way to make a mountain out of a molehill bud  


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3240 times:

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 13):
Oh ok. So using your logic we should then ban all cars on the road now with no airbags, ABS, ESP, defrosters, etc etc because that would save lives too

But what reason is there to defend ionization-type smoke alarms? Clearly none. Most newer cars include most of those features you describe anyway. And I don't mean banning existing ionization alarms from use, just banning the sale of them. Basically, this is simply like updating building codes.

[Edited 2011-05-24 19:45:59]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21571 posts, RR: 55
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3217 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 12):
He states that 95% of all smoke alarms installed in the U.S. are ionization-type

Without a reference to the specific time frame that he cites at the top of the page. So I'm suspicious of how that data was derived, and whether it really has any connection to what he's trying to get at or whether it's just something thrown out that doesn't have much to do with anything but sounds alarming.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 12):
The fact is, banning ionization-type smoke alarms could save thousands of lives yearly.

What would be even more helpful is if the government would, rather than ban a certain type of detector outright, develop updated standards that manufacturers would have to meet. After all, that is the goal, isn't it? Fires don't decide to be any more or less dangerous based on what sort of smoke detector is present. I don't care how my smoke detector works - it could be a canary in a cage that sneezes loudly whenever it inhales smoke for all I care. I do care that it works. A photoelectric detector that doesn't work is just as useless as an ionization detector that doesn't work.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3152 times:

Really, anyone who defends ionization-type smoke detectors probably have a conflict of interest with the manufacturers (BRK, Kidde, etc.).

Here is a real test:
http://www.planetfiresafety.com/



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinenjxc500 From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3132 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Thread starter):
So, I think that there should be a ban against ionization-type smoke detectors. What does anyone think?

You better start petitioning for a ban on the photoelectric ones too because they don't respond well to flaming fires.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 16):
Really, anyone who defends ionization-type smoke detectors probably have a conflict of interest with the manufacturers (BRK, Kidde, etc.).

Don't forget if you ban ionization detectors, then you ONLY have photoelectric.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 14):
But what reason is there to defend ionization-type smoke alarms? Clearly none.

They detect fast burning and flaming fires much better.

Quoting Mir (Reply 6):
So let people be half protected if they want to be. No need to ban anything.

This is my choice, don't ban, raise awareness.....

Here are the facts:

NFPA 2011 - http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?c...0vs.%20photoelectric&cookie_test=1

TEST of different types of detectors in different types of fires...

http://youtu.be/SnAaeTDRxek

In my opinion, the DUAL type smoke detectors are best, both Photoelectric and Ionization.

But wait, there's a third option: Triple protection, IONIZATION, PHOTOELECTRIC and THERMAL.

The Omni Sensor, model 3251, is a microprocessor-based
smoke detector which uses a combination of ionization,
photoelectronic, and thermal sensing technologies.

http://www.systemsensor.com/pdf/A05-255.pdf

As much as we hate to admit, this comes down to cost. $10 for ionization, $30 for combination, thousands for the ultimate.....


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3130 times:

Quoting njxc500 (Reply 17):
They detect fast burning and flaming fires much better.

By much better, do you mean by 30 seconds? Official studies have shown that ionization alarms are about only 30 seconds faster at detecting fast flaming fires than photoelectric alarms, regardless of what the manufacturers claim. But with a slow smoldering fire, as seen in the YouTube video, after 30 MINUTES the ionization detector still failed to detect all that smoke in the tank. Trust me, I would never lie about these things. It clearly shows how gullible average consumers are.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21571 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 18):
Trust me, I would never lie about these things.

Okay, now you've got me curious: what exactly is your connection to the smoke alarm industry? Because you're certainly sounding like you have one. Do you work for a company in the industry? Do you work for or with a fire department? Do you work in municipal government with building codes?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3112 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 19):
Okay, now you've got me curious: what exactly is your connection to the smoke alarm industry? Because you're certainly sounding like you have one. Do you work for a company in the industry? Do you work for or with a fire department? Do you work in municipal government with building codes?

No, i don't, however, I am a very truthful person. I just like to promote the truth. This thread as become similar to those flame wars about the Boeing 767-400ER between Boeing and Airbus fans. It seems that many of the posters here have been brainwashed by the manufacturers.

[Edited 2011-05-25 18:11:34]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinejetblast From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1231 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3105 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 7):
There should definitely be some action taken on products that don't work as advertised, especially if they can result in fatal consequences.

Any smoke detector can not work as advertised through poor installation or improper maintenance. I have been to fires where perfectly good detectors were installed in the building but did not work. Maybe we should just remove smoke detectors from stores, since the examples I mentioned 'did not work as advertised'.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 18):
Trust me, I would never lie about these things.

People who say things like this lead me to not believe them.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 20):
No, i don't, however, I am a very truthful person. I just like to promote the truth. This thread as become similar to those flame wars about the Boeing 767-400ER between Boeing and Airbus fans. It seems that many of the posters here have been brainwashed by the manufacturers.

I'd like to see your fire protection engineering degree, or other credential of merit. I did my time in the fire service and even I have no idea what you are going on about.

Have you ever noticed how the flame wars you quote are fueled by you and your incredible lack of facts, or that you never have any unbiased source to support your claims? It's the same thing over and over again. Show me a reasonable argument backed by facts that make sense and I will gladly rescind my statements.

You like the Boeing 767-400ER and anyone who disagrees with you is blasphemous in your mind and banished to hell, we get it...



Speedbird Concorde One
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3101 times:

Quoting jetblast (Reply 21):
Have you ever noticed how the flame wars you quote are fueled by you and your incredible lack of facts, or that you never have any unbiased source to support your claims? It's the same thing over and over again. Show me a reasonable argument backed by facts that make sense and I will gladly rescind my statements.

And why isn't that YouTube video convincing enough? That video is absolute proof.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinejetblast From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1231 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3093 times:

Let's have a look at the sources you have provided so far.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 7):
Everyone should read this:
http://www.taylormartino.com/product...t.cfm

This is a lawyer's website, trying to make a buck for him or his colleagues.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 16):
Here is a real test:
http://www.planetfiresafety.com/

This is a company's website, trying to sell their product and also make a buck.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 22):
And why isn't that YouTube video convincing enough? That video is absolute proof.

No, it's not. The test was performed in a controlled environment. Unless you live in a burn building consisting of solid concrete, chances are it's not accurate. Each type of detector has a purpose - both ionization and photoelectric.

Allow me to quote from this excellent link in reply 17, provided by the national authority in such matters:

Quoting njxc500 (Reply 17):
NFPA 2011 - http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?c...est=1

which states that both types of detector do, in fact, have advantages. Banning ionisation detectors would remove some of those advantages.



Speedbird Concorde One
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3088 times:

Quoting jetblast (Reply 23):
which states that both types of detector do, in fact, have advantages. Banning ionisation detectors would remove some of those advantages.

The NFPA is not always right, in fact, some of their members probably have a conflict of interest with the manufacturers. Read here:
http://www.theworldfiresafetyfoundat...rs_Ago,_From_Our_FireFighters.html



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
25 jetblast : That entire website is a conspiracy theory, probably affiliated with the same people you linked in reply 16 seeing how they both center around Austra
26 1337Delta764 : Okay, now I have a question for you: In your experience, how much faster does an ionization detector detect a fast flaming fire vs. a photoelectric?
27 Post contains links njxc500 : I figured we needed another round of information.... The World Fire Safety Foundation was started by an Ex firefighter named Adrian Butler. All this r
28 WarRI1 : As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I have several very old photoelectric type alarm units, I test them with a direct flame, a match, without fail
29 jetblast : My area of expertise is not how fast a smoke detector would begin activating after the point of ignition, it is what to do when my engine arrives and
30 1337Delta764 : Of course, fast flaming fires are more likely to occur when you are awake, while slow smoldering fires are more likely to occur when you are asleep.
31 Mir : Source? -Mir
32 jetblast : But what if I am laying down and appearing to be asleep, but I am actually not? Is the fire going to somehow verify this, and then base its intensity
33 Post contains images Transpac787 : That's hysterical, coming from you. But it's not you, it's everyone else.... right??
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Blackberry Ban Effect On Airports, Airlines posted Sun Aug 1 2010 22:41:39 by 2travel2know2
French Parliament Approves Burqa Ban posted Tue Jul 13 2010 10:47:57 by Slider
San Francisco: Ban Sale Of Pets? posted Fri Jul 9 2010 17:54:55 by Dreadnought
Israel To Lift Gaza Import Ban On Civilian Goods posted Sun Jun 20 2010 11:26:07 by TheCol
Belgian Politicians Pass Veil Ban posted Thu Apr 29 2010 17:20:52 by oa260
What Causes White Smoke To Be Emitted From Cars? posted Mon Mar 22 2010 18:37:38 by 2707200X
Obama To Ban Recreational Fishing! posted Wed Mar 10 2010 14:28:50 by planespotting
New Mine Detectors...... Rats. posted Fri Mar 5 2010 01:54:24 by oly720man
Iran Issues Ban Warning Over Gulf Identification posted Mon Feb 22 2010 13:18:52 by PC12Fan
Why Do Some Governments Ban Porn? posted Mon Feb 15 2010 19:50:57 by FuturePilot16