smoke detectors

[james_s]

The solution:  Send inspectors only to people who need it! 

Well, that's a nice thought.

I think a better solution though is to educate the public and strongly recommend that everyone install smoke alarms in their home and test them regularly. Require landlords and house builders to include one, but then recognize that at some point you can't be everyone's nanny, ultimately it is up to the individual to take care of these things. Some people won't but that is inevitable. Some people also won't exercise or eat healthy, or refrain from drinking to excess or smoking, or engaging in various risky activities. Can't save everyone from themselves, but you can encourage people to be safe and provide them with all the information they need. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink, so don't waste time trying to force it.

[bill_c]

The thing is, while you are sleeping, you can't smell the smoke, it doesn't wake you up.
As the smoke gets worse, it affects the lungs, like a sudden asthma attack.
Without an alarm, you don't wake up ever again, you may very well be dead from the smoke long before it turns into a fire.
I know first hand just how important smoke detectors are.  When I first woke up, I couldn't understand why it was beeping, didn't see signs of fire or smell smoke.
It wasn't until I turned on the lights and my eyes half adjusted to the brightness, that I could even see the smoke.  It was two minutes from when I woke before I could even begin to smell the smoke, a few minutes later I could smell the full strength of the acrid smoke. It didn't progress beyond the smoldering stage so I quickly tossed some water on it and opened all the doors to vent the place.
It was that night about 15 years ago that I realized how wrong I was in thinking smoke detectors are not important.

[RIDDICC]

and how do u explain the increase in terminal smoke poisoning and in final falls in F.Rep.Germ?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Death-per-deaths.svg

i mean: maybe they save some, but kill others?

-arne

[james_s]

and how do u explain the increase in terminal smoke poisoning and in final falls in F.Rep.Germ?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Death-per-deaths.svg

i mean: maybe they save some, but kill others?

-arne

I don't know the explanation but surely you aren't seriously suggesting that the smoke detectors are the cause of the increased deaths? What is your suspected link there? How does a smoke alarm kill somebody? I think maybe you need to contemplate the difference between correlation and causation.

[Simon]

In the UK you have to have home insurance if you have a mortgage (bank wants you to protect their investment), home insurance will normally ask you to confirm you have a smoke alarm. Obviously they can only believe you. It makes sense to have them.

[RIDDICC]

It makes sense to have them.

r u aware, that u all repeat the claim again and again?
and u refer to some few cases, were the smoke detector allegedly helped...
that is not enough for my taste.

what if people die at an elevated rate, because: they try to extinguish a fire without protection and to silence a smoke alarm at the ceiling...?
are they less important than the (possibly fewer) people, who had a flaming pot in their kitchen?

-arne

[SilverSolder]

It makes sense to have them.

r u aware, that u all repeat the claim again and again?
and u refer to some few cases, were the smoke detector allegedly helped...
that is not enough for my taste.

what if people die at an elevated rate, because: they try to extinguish a fire without protection and to silence a smoke alarm at the ceiling...?
are they less important than the (possibly fewer) people, who had a flaming pot in their kitchen?

-arne

The death rate per 1,000 reported home fires was more than twice as high in homes that did not have any working smoke alarms (12.3 deaths per 1,000 fires), either because no smoke alarm was present or an alarm was present but did not operate), as it was in homes with working smoke alarms (5.7 per 1,000 fires).



Let's find something else to talk about, and make sure the batteries in your units are in good shape!

https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-and-tools/Detection-and-Signaling/Smoke-Alarms-in-US-Home-Fires

[RIDDICC]

The death rate per 1,000 reported home fires was more than twice as high ...

might be coincidencial, because: homes with good smoke detectors have also good other habits (e. g. regarding safe candle practices, low age devices).
of course the doubled final fall rate in F.Rep.Germ since 2007 can be caused by something else than smoke detectors (but: that s why i m asking here).
-arne

[SilverSolder]

The death rate per 1,000 reported home fires was more than twice as high ...

might be coincidencial, because: homes with good smoke detectors have also good other habits (e. g. regarding safe candle practices, low age devices).
of course the doubled final fall rate in F.Rep.Germ since 2007 can be caused by something else than smoke detectors (but: that s why i m asking here).
-arne

Nothing is perfect-  smoke detectors, people, ...    nothing.   So, you can never be exactly 100% sure of anything.  That's life.

The null hypothesis on smoke detectors is that if you get woken up on the first sign of smoke, you have a chance to get out.  The statistics support that hypothesis with a very high degree of confidence > 99.99%.

All you have done until now is raise the (valid) point that there is a non zero chance that the hypothesis is wrong.   What you haven't done, is propose an alternative hypothesis that explains the statistics equally well.

If you don't have a solid and testable hypothesis -  you are in conspiracy theory territory.

[james_s]

It makes sense to have them.

r u aware, that u all repeat the claim again and again?
and u refer to some few cases, were the smoke detector allegedly helped...
that is not enough for my taste.

what if people die at an elevated rate, because: they try to extinguish a fire without protection and to silence a smoke alarm at the ceiling...?
are they less important than the (possibly fewer) people, who had a flaming pot in their kitchen?

-arne

Ok you're just being an idiot now. It's clear that you've come here either to troll people, or looking for someone to support your nutty belief and when you get answers you don't want to hear you just keep repeating the question. I'm done wasting my time discussing this with you. If you don't want to have a smoke alarm that's your choice, but only an imbecile would seriously suggest that they somehow cause deaths.

[RIDDICC]

The null hypothesis on smoke detectors is that if you get woken up on the first sign of smoke, you have a chance to get out.  The statistics support that hypothesis with a very high degree of confidence > 99.99%.

uhm?! i passed an exam in stochastics I to IV... 
so it is hard for me to believe, that u really think, that u r right...
all u have is a correlation.

what if i make a study, that says:
"The death rate per 1,000 reported home fires was more than thrice as high in homes that did not have good fire protection habits (31 deaths per 1000 fires), as it was in homes with good  fire protection habits (10 per 1000 fires)."?
cant u c, that smoke detectors might be an irrelevant or even paradox piece in the security concept?

if u do 9 things right and thing #10 wrong, the outcome might be still better, than it would be, if u do thing #10 right and the other 9 things wrong.

but interesting is, that there r about 5 deaths in 1000 fires despite a smoke detector.

If you don't want to have a smoke alarm that's your choice.

no, it is not. My government forces me to have two for appr. 17USD/year.
how do u explain the rapid and strong increase of falls and smoke intoxications since this new legislation started to become effective.

-arne

[SilverSolder]

The null hypothesis on smoke detectors is that if you get woken up on the first sign of smoke, you have a chance to get out.  The statistics support that hypothesis with a very high degree of confidence > 99.99%.

uhm?! i passed an exam in stochastics I to IV... 
so it is hard for me to believe, that u really think, that u r right...
all u have is a correlation.

what if i make a study, that says:
The death rate per 1,000 reported home fires was more than thrice as high in homes that did not have good fire protection habits (31 deaths per 1000 fires), as it was in homes with good  fire protection habits (10 per 1000 fires).
cant u c, that smoke detectors might be an irrelevant or even paradox piece in the security concept?

if u do 9 things right and thing #10 wrong, the outcome might be still better, than it would be, if u do thing #10 right and the other 9 things wrong.

but interesting is, that there r about 5 deaths in 1000 fires despite a smoke detector.

If you don't want to have a smoke alarm that's your choice.

no, it is not. My government forces me to have two for appr. 17USD/year.
how do u explain the rapid and strong increase of falls and smoke intoxications since this new legislation started to become effective.

-arne

So your alternative hypothesis is "homes that have good fire prevention habits have lower death rates than homes with poor fire prevention habits".   Fine - it is obviously true that if your home has good fire prevention habits, then the chance of a fire starting in the first place is lower.

However; Death doesn't care if the fire started in a good home or a bad home.  Death only cares that a fire was started...   good, bad, or indifferent home.  The stats show that once a fire starts, your chances of escaping Death are much better with a smoke detector.

One precaution (good habits) doesn't alter the other (smoke detector), they are statistically independent variables - you can get the benefit of both!

If we drew a Venn diagram of the two sets, we would probably see a big overlap between the two groups.


Why would you place yourself in the somewhat esoteric group of "good habits" and "no detector"?   It doesn't make any sense, and you know it!

[Simon]

The death rate per 1,000 reported home fires was more than twice as high ...

might be coincidencial, because: homes with good smoke detectors have also good other habits (e. g. regarding safe candle practices, low age devices).
of course the doubled final fall rate in F.Rep.Germ since 2007 can be caused by something else than smoke detectors (but: that s why i m asking here).
-arne

For the love of god shut up! You are talking rubbish and polluting this thread.

[Gyro]

He started the thread.

I'm curious about when we started feeding one thread trolls though. 

[Simon]

God has he been going that long?

[Gyro]

(Deleted)

[themadhippy]

whilst on the subject of smoke detectors remember there not for life,most manufacturers recommend replacement after 10 years.Also dont just rely on pushing the test button ,get some smoke  into them

[james_s]

whilst on the subject of smoke detectors remember there not for life,most manufacturers recommend replacement after 10 years.Also dont just rely on pushing the test button ,get some smoke  into them

In practice I don't recall ever having one fail though, if anything some of the really old ones seem to be excessively sensitive, I still remember my grandmother had one of the very first ones that came on the market and when I was a kid that thing would go off every time she cooked bacon. There is one at our cabin that is at least 40 years old and it works fine, it's near the kitchen area and I set it off recently when I spilled a few drips in the oven. Certainly not a bad idea to properly test them though, you can even buy cans of "smoke" specifically made for testing detectors. I also like redundancy so I have one in almost every room of my house, and I have a mix of battery and mains powered units.

[SilverSolder]

whilst on the subject of smoke detectors remember there not for life,most manufacturers recommend replacement after 10 years.Also dont just rely on pushing the test button ,get some smoke  into them

In practice I don't recall ever having one fail though, if anything some of the really old ones seem to be excessively sensitive, I still remember my grandmother had one of the very first ones that came on the market and when I was a kid that thing would go off every time she cooked bacon. There is one at our cabin that is at least 40 years old and it works fine, it's near the kitchen area and I set it off recently when I spilled a few drips in the oven. Certainly not a bad idea to properly test them though, you can even buy cans of "smoke" specifically made for testing detectors. I also like redundancy so I have one in almost every room of my house, and I have a mix of battery and mains powered units.

The detectors in this house are all linked via the mains wiring, so if one goes off, they all go off...   very loud!  -  they won't go off from cooking bacon, but burning toast really bad will do it (ask me how I know!)

Linking the detectors is a good idea if there are remote rooms in the house, where you might not hear the alarm if you sleep far away.

[james_s]

I think they are required to be linked now in new homes but you don't have to retrofit older homes. There are situations where linked detectors could be beneficial although in most cases I prefer standalone so that I can tell easily where the source of the smoke is and investigate quickly. The detectors are sensitive enough that by the time the one in the room I'm in or near goes off I can still likely escape if it has reached that point.

[SilverSolder]

I do both - the linked units, plus separate battery powered ones in strategic locations.  Better safe than sorry, with so much electronic equipment to go wrong!

[CatalinaWOW]

I would subscribe to the other factors theory.  Some fire experts here in the US believe that the "open concept" design fad which has swept the US and possibly other parts of the world has resulted in faster fire spread, blocking escape routes and increasing fire severity prior to smoke arrival at the detectors.  There are other changes behavioral and demographic that could also contribute. 

The only conclusions I would draw are that smoke detectors are not 100% effective at preventing death and that given the testimonials that show that they have saved some lives they are a damned cheap way to help reduce fire deaths.  For the cost of a few beers or an abominably cheap DMM you can buy a reasonable increment of protection.

If you want something to rail against try this.  At least some local codes in the US prevent installation of smoke detectors in kitchens and garages, two of the most likely points of fire initiation.  Why? Too many false alarms.

[themadhippy]

At least some local codes in the US prevent installation of smoke detectors in kitchens and garages

Heat detectors are  the weapon of choice in those locations,avoids the little boy calling wolf situation.

[CatalinaWOW]

At least some local codes in the US prevent installation of smoke detectors in kitchens and garages

Heat detectors are  the weapon of choice in those locations,avoids the little boy calling wolf situation.

Don't know the parameters on heat detectors.  In my garage a wood stove, welding and many other heat sources exist as do in the kitchen.  If they trigger on air temperature, like typical wax or woods metal sprinkler systems the problem is that they trigger much later than a smoke detector.  better than nothing.  Perhaps a combined system with smoke detector to wake people up and heat detector to call fire department.

in my case there is no automatic call to the fire department so I make the decision as to whether it is a false alarm.  Usually I know if I am burning dinner or have driven an oil burning car into the garage.

[james_s]

I would subscribe to the other factors theory.  Some fire experts here in the US believe that the "open concept" design fad which has swept the US and possibly other parts of the world has resulted in faster fire spread, blocking escape routes and increasing fire severity prior to smoke arrival at the detectors.  There are other changes behavioral and demographic that could also contribute. 

I've thought that open concept nonsense was the most idiotic thing right from the very start. It looks great in pictures but usually the goal is to live in a house rather than just use it for photo shoots. I've been in quite a few houses like that and they're noisy, if you have multiple different people and some want to watch TV, some want to listen to music, some want to have a conversation, somebody wants to cook in the kitchen, if most of the living space is one big open area it all blends together. Walls were invented for a reason, to cordon off different areas being used for different purposes. Seems like every one of those shows where they're renovating old houses they knock out the wall around the kitchen and I always shake my head. Kitchens are noisy, the last thing I want is for the kitchen to be part of my living room. I'm hopeful that Covid with work/school from home puts an end to that ridiculous fad.