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.
Joseph, Too much information! I read your first and last paragraph. 15 Years is a long time to sacrfice for a commendable cause but your preaching in the wrong forum to the wrong group of people.
Take it to your local senator or even the insurance commissioner in your state.
USFA Releases Report on Residential Structure Fire Fatalities
Aug 10, 2006, EMMITSBURG, Md. — The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) has released a special report regarding fatal residential structure fires with working smoke alarms. From 2001-2004, 391 fatal residential structure fires with working smoke alarms were reported to the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS), resulting in 452 civilian fire fatalities, according to the report.
\”Each year an unacceptable number of American citizens lose their lives in residential structure fires where smoke alarms operated,\” says Acting USFA Fire Administrator Charlie Dickinson. \”USFA has investigated the characteristics of the victims of these fires to better educate the public in taking preventative measures to reduce the risks involved with such fires.\”
According to the report, alarms operated in 34 percent of fatal apartment fires and in 12 percent of fatal one- and two-family dwelling fires. Thirty-seven percent of the victims of fatal residential structure fires with working smoke alarms were sleeping at the time of their death. An additional 29 percent of victims were trying to escape the fire at the time of their fatal injury.
The report, Investigation of Fatal Residential Structure Fires With Operational Smoke Alarms, was developed by the USFA\’s National Fire Data Center as part of its Topical Fire Research Series. The investigation results are based on data from the NFIRS for 2001-2004. The report examined residential structure fires with fatalities where smoke alarms operated, and addresses the characteristics of the fatalities.
\”We know the value that smoke alarms, escape plans, child fire prevention programs and residential sprinklers can have on saving lives,\” says Dickinson. \”We continue to encourage all residents of this nation to take the steps necessary to ensure their homes are fire safe today.\”
J. Fleming\’s Comments on Report
I would like to make the following comments regarding the USFA Report on smoke detectors.
From the Press Release
The U.S. Fire Administration has released a special report regarding fatal residential structure fires with working smoke alarms. The report reveals alarms operated in 34 percent of fatal apartment fires and in 12 percent of fatal one- and two-family dwelling fires.
But the report also states the following:
\”Alarms were present in approximately 60 percent of fatal residential structure fires. Of those fatal fires with an alarm present, the detector operated 39 percent of the time. Together, these statistics indicate that alarms were present and operated in 23 percent of fatal residential structure fires\”.
Comment on the Validity of Either Statement.
In my opinion, the error in the press release quote posting stems from the confusing manner in which the USFA reports the data. The report does state in Figure 1 that in 1-2 family fatal fires only 12% had operational alarms. However the source of this data is never explained. In addition, the contradiction between this statement with other statement, which claims that \”that alarms were present and operated in 23 percent of fatal residential structure fires\”, is never resolved.
But perhaps more confusing than the contradictory statement put forth by the USFA is that in my opinion neither the 12% figure nor the 23% figure is correct. I suspect it is closer to 40%.
Compare these 2 statements.
From \”Fatal Fires\” Topical Research Series Vol. 5 â€â€Ŕ Issue 1, USFA March 2005.
\”Smoke alarms were present in 58% of fatal residential structure fires, but only operational in 37% of those fatal fires.\”
In this report the USFA meant the following:
– No Detector Present â€â€Ŕ 43%
– Detector Present and operated â€â€Ŕ 37%
– Detector Present and did not Operate â€â€Ŕ 21%
From \”Fatal Fires with Operational Smoke Alarms\” Topical Research Series Vol. 6 â€â€Ŕ Issue 2, USFA August 2006.
\”Alarms were present in 60% of fatal residential structure fires. Of those fatal fires with an alarm present, the detector operated 39% of the time. Together these statistics indicate that alarms were present and operated in 23% of fatal residential structure fires.\”
The first 2 sentences, of this claim are very similar to the previous claim but in this report the third sentence provides a new and very different analysis. In this report the USFA appears to mean the following:
– No Detector Present â€â€Ŕ 40%
– Detector Present and operated â€â€Ŕ 23%
– Detector Present and did not Operate â€â€Ŕ 37%
Therefore, according to the USFA, from March of 2005 to August of 2006, the % of fatalities that occurred with an operating detector went from 37% down to 23%. While simultaneously, the % of fatalities that occurred with a detector that did not operate went from 21% to 37%. This makes no sense. I suspect that the author of this report mistakenly multiplied the 60% by 39% instead of leaving the 39% alone.
I suppose this could be due to a grammatical error except for the fact that it varied so much from previous estimates. Here is a summary of statistics from previous USFA Reports titled \”Fire in the U.S.\” Increase in fatal fires with working detectors â€â€Ŕ 1988 (9%), 1994 (19%), 1996 (21%), 1998 (29%), 2001 (39%). While there will always be a certain percentage of people who cannot be saved by smoke detectors, e.g. the handicapped, those intimate with the fire etc., there is no reason to believe that the number of those people quadrupled between 1988 and 2001. In addition, while the number of fires with working detectors increase approximately in proportion to the increase in the number of detectors installed, the increase in the % of fatal fires with working detectors far exceeds it. Although this information was provided to the USFA, the USFA never made this disturbing increase a part of this recent study. Despite repeatedly stating in reports \”In some cases the detector may have gone off too late to help the victim, or the victim may have been too incapacitated to react. But the % of deaths with detectors, especially the upward trend, is somewhat disturbing since there is a widespread belief that an operating detector will save lives. Further study is needed to show what other factors were involved with these deaths.\”
After repeatedly stating that this phenomenon should be studied the USFA failed to look at this issue in this paper. I will admit they spent a lot of time looking at why some people die when the detector works but they did no analysis whatsoever for why that number would have increased so much.
In my opinion the best explanation is that starting in the late 80\’s, Underwriters Labs, in an attempt to reduce nuisance alarms, forced the manufacturers to make less sensitive ionization detectors. Shortly after this change UL modified the smoldering test in UL217, the UL Smoke Detector Standard, in ways that made it much easier for the ionization detector to pass. The gradual introduction of these desensitized ionization detectors into American homes is the most reasonable explanation for the increase in fire deaths in cases where the detector operated. As a consequence this unrecognized flaw could be responsible for hundreds of deaths per year.
Another problem not really investigated by the Report is the number of fatalities that occur when the detector is disabled. Even if I am correct that the number of fatalities occurring when the detector is disabled is approximately 20% and not 37%, it is still a significant problem. If that is the case why does the USFA state, \”Some models sound false alarms when they detect cooking smoke…\”. Why not point out that the models they are referring to are ionization detectors. Here is a quote from a recent study in 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.\”(Ionization and photoelectric smoke alarms in rural Alaskan homes\”, Alaska Injury Prevention Center, August 2000)
The USFA report recommends, \”relocating alarms farther from sources of fumes,\” but what is someone to do in a small apartment or mobile home. 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? Why isn\’t the USFA sharing this information with the public?
I agree with both previous comments that it is desirable to hard-wire smoke detectors and as Fire Marshal for the Boston Fire Department I pushed for language encouraging this type of upgrade during renovations. However I think that hard-wiring ionization detectors is not part of the solution but part of the problem.
Michael,
I was looking for information on smoke dectectors and found your article. I am looking for a photoelectric smoke detector. We just bought a new house that has a smoke detector in every room. I found out that Ionization detectors give off small amounts of radiation. I was told that if I did anything to any of the smoke detectors in the house they would all be affected. I would like to change to the photoelectric smoke detectors now more than ever after reading your article. Can you tell me what companies manufactor this type of equiptment and where I might be able to purchase one?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
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.
___
Joseph, Too much information! I read your first and last paragraph. 15 Years is a long time to sacrfice for a commendable cause but your preaching in the wrong forum to the wrong group of people.
Take it to your local senator or even the insurance commissioner in your state.
Good Luck!
This is obviously a really hot topic. I read ALL of Joseph Flemings post, thanks.
USFA Releases Report on Residential Structure Fire Fatalities
Aug 10, 2006, EMMITSBURG, Md. — The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) has released a special report regarding fatal residential structure fires with working smoke alarms. From 2001-2004, 391 fatal residential structure fires with working smoke alarms were reported to the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS), resulting in 452 civilian fire fatalities, according to the report.
\”Each year an unacceptable number of American citizens lose their lives in residential structure fires where smoke alarms operated,\” says Acting USFA Fire Administrator Charlie Dickinson. \”USFA has investigated the characteristics of the victims of these fires to better educate the public in taking preventative measures to reduce the risks involved with such fires.\”
According to the report, alarms operated in 34 percent of fatal apartment fires and in 12 percent of fatal one- and two-family dwelling fires. Thirty-seven percent of the victims of fatal residential structure fires with working smoke alarms were sleeping at the time of their death. An additional 29 percent of victims were trying to escape the fire at the time of their fatal injury.
The report, Investigation of Fatal Residential Structure Fires With Operational Smoke Alarms, was developed by the USFA\’s National Fire Data Center as part of its Topical Fire Research Series. The investigation results are based on data from the NFIRS for 2001-2004. The report examined residential structure fires with fatalities where smoke alarms operated, and addresses the characteristics of the fatalities.
\”We know the value that smoke alarms, escape plans, child fire prevention programs and residential sprinklers can have on saving lives,\” says Dickinson. \”We continue to encourage all residents of this nation to take the steps necessary to ensure their homes are fire safe today.\”
J. Fleming\’s Comments on Report
I would like to make the following comments regarding the USFA Report on smoke detectors.
From the Press Release
The U.S. Fire Administration has released a special report regarding fatal residential structure fires with working smoke alarms. The report reveals alarms operated in 34 percent of fatal apartment fires and in 12 percent of fatal one- and two-family dwelling fires.
But the report also states the following:
\”Alarms were present in approximately 60 percent of fatal residential structure fires. Of those fatal fires with an alarm present, the detector operated 39 percent of the time. Together, these statistics indicate that alarms were present and operated in 23 percent of fatal residential structure fires\”.
Comment on the Validity of Either Statement.
In my opinion, the error in the press release quote posting stems from the confusing manner in which the USFA reports the data. The report does state in Figure 1 that in 1-2 family fatal fires only 12% had operational alarms. However the source of this data is never explained. In addition, the contradiction between this statement with other statement, which claims that \”that alarms were present and operated in 23 percent of fatal residential structure fires\”, is never resolved.
But perhaps more confusing than the contradictory statement put forth by the USFA is that in my opinion neither the 12% figure nor the 23% figure is correct. I suspect it is closer to 40%.
Compare these 2 statements.
From \”Fatal Fires\” Topical Research Series Vol. 5 â€â€Ŕ Issue 1, USFA March 2005.
\”Smoke alarms were present in 58% of fatal residential structure fires, but only operational in 37% of those fatal fires.\”
In this report the USFA meant the following:
– No Detector Present â€â€Ŕ 43%
– Detector Present and operated â€â€Ŕ 37%
– Detector Present and did not Operate â€â€Ŕ 21%
From \”Fatal Fires with Operational Smoke Alarms\” Topical Research Series Vol. 6 â€â€Ŕ Issue 2, USFA August 2006.
\”Alarms were present in 60% of fatal residential structure fires. Of those fatal fires with an alarm present, the detector operated 39% of the time. Together these statistics indicate that alarms were present and operated in 23% of fatal residential structure fires.\”
The first 2 sentences, of this claim are very similar to the previous claim but in this report the third sentence provides a new and very different analysis. In this report the USFA appears to mean the following:
– No Detector Present â€â€Ŕ 40%
– Detector Present and operated â€â€Ŕ 23%
– Detector Present and did not Operate â€â€Ŕ 37%
Therefore, according to the USFA, from March of 2005 to August of 2006, the % of fatalities that occurred with an operating detector went from 37% down to 23%. While simultaneously, the % of fatalities that occurred with a detector that did not operate went from 21% to 37%. This makes no sense. I suspect that the author of this report mistakenly multiplied the 60% by 39% instead of leaving the 39% alone.
I suppose this could be due to a grammatical error except for the fact that it varied so much from previous estimates. Here is a summary of statistics from previous USFA Reports titled \”Fire in the U.S.\” Increase in fatal fires with working detectors â€â€Ŕ 1988 (9%), 1994 (19%), 1996 (21%), 1998 (29%), 2001 (39%). While there will always be a certain percentage of people who cannot be saved by smoke detectors, e.g. the handicapped, those intimate with the fire etc., there is no reason to believe that the number of those people quadrupled between 1988 and 2001. In addition, while the number of fires with working detectors increase approximately in proportion to the increase in the number of detectors installed, the increase in the % of fatal fires with working detectors far exceeds it. Although this information was provided to the USFA, the USFA never made this disturbing increase a part of this recent study. Despite repeatedly stating in reports \”In some cases the detector may have gone off too late to help the victim, or the victim may have been too incapacitated to react. But the % of deaths with detectors, especially the upward trend, is somewhat disturbing since there is a widespread belief that an operating detector will save lives. Further study is needed to show what other factors were involved with these deaths.\”
After repeatedly stating that this phenomenon should be studied the USFA failed to look at this issue in this paper. I will admit they spent a lot of time looking at why some people die when the detector works but they did no analysis whatsoever for why that number would have increased so much.
In my opinion the best explanation is that starting in the late 80\’s, Underwriters Labs, in an attempt to reduce nuisance alarms, forced the manufacturers to make less sensitive ionization detectors. Shortly after this change UL modified the smoldering test in UL217, the UL Smoke Detector Standard, in ways that made it much easier for the ionization detector to pass. The gradual introduction of these desensitized ionization detectors into American homes is the most reasonable explanation for the increase in fire deaths in cases where the detector operated. As a consequence this unrecognized flaw could be responsible for hundreds of deaths per year.
Another problem not really investigated by the Report is the number of fatalities that occur when the detector is disabled. Even if I am correct that the number of fatalities occurring when the detector is disabled is approximately 20% and not 37%, it is still a significant problem. If that is the case why does the USFA state, \”Some models sound false alarms when they detect cooking smoke…\”. Why not point out that the models they are referring to are ionization detectors. Here is a quote from a recent study in 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.\”(Ionization and photoelectric smoke alarms in rural Alaskan homes\”, Alaska Injury Prevention Center, August 2000)
The USFA report recommends, \”relocating alarms farther from sources of fumes,\” but what is someone to do in a small apartment or mobile home. 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? Why isn\’t the USFA sharing this information with the public?
I agree with both previous comments that it is desirable to hard-wire smoke detectors and as Fire Marshal for the Boston Fire Department I pushed for language encouraging this type of upgrade during renovations. However I think that hard-wiring ionization detectors is not part of the solution but part of the problem.
Michael,
I was looking for information on smoke dectectors and found your article. I am looking for a photoelectric smoke detector. We just bought a new house that has a smoke detector in every room. I found out that Ionization detectors give off small amounts of radiation. I was told that if I did anything to any of the smoke detectors in the house they would all be affected. I would like to change to the photoelectric smoke detectors now more than ever after reading your article. Can you tell me what companies manufactor this type of equiptment and where I might be able to purchase one?
Thanks for the information