{"id":16754,"date":"2014-11-17T19:17:28","date_gmt":"2014-11-17T19:17:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/clekis.com\/?p=16754"},"modified":"2014-11-17T19:17:28","modified_gmt":"2014-11-17T19:17:28","slug":"majority-smoke-alarms-us-homes-slow-detect-smoke","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/themediabeast.com\/resources\/majority-smoke-alarms-us-homes-slow-detect-smoke\/","title":{"rendered":"Majority of Smoke Alarms in US homes are too slow to detect smoke."},"content":{"rendered":"

\"smokedetector\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n
\n

CLEVELAND – A growing number of influential firefighter associations nationwide are warning U.S. consumers that smoke alarms found in 90 percent of homes are often slow going off.<\/p>\n

The alarms utilize what is known as ionization technology and were the first smoke alarms to hit the market in the earlier 1970s.<\/p>\n

The International Association of Firefighters<\/a> ,<\/strong>\u00a0The Ohio Fire Chiefs Association<\/strong><\/a> and the North East Ohio Fire Prevention Association<\/strong><\/a> all agree that “ionization” alarms are slower in detecting smoldering fires and could cost lives.<\/p>\n

Statistics show half of all fire deaths are due to smoke inhalation.<\/p>\n

Instead, all three groups urge consumers to purchase alarms made with photoelectric technology that respond more quickly to smoke.<\/p>\n

In addition, the American Society of Home Inspectors<\/a> \u00a0<\/strong>also supports photoelectric alarms over the more widely used ionization technology.<\/p>\n

An exclusive 5 On Your Side investigation found questions have been raised about alarm times since the first smoke alarms hit the market in the early 1970s.<\/p>\n

A 1974 government report<\/strong><\/a> comparing both types of technology first found that ionization alarms react more slowly to smoke.<\/p>\n

In addition, University researchers in 1995<\/strong><\/a> concluded photoelectric alarms were the most reliable.<\/p>\n

And in 2005, a second government testing found<\/strong><\/a> \u00a0“ionization alarms may not always alarm<\/strong><\/a> even when a room is filled with smoke.”<\/p>\n

Following that report, one of the nation’s largest fire departments quickly acted.<\/p>\n

In Boston, Deputy Fire Chief Jay Fleming said, “in the city of Boston, you must use either photoelectric smoke alarms or dual smoke alarms.”<\/p>\n

“You are not allowed to use ionization alarms as stand alone devices,” said Fleming.<\/p>\n

But, even more concerning for Fleming and others are test results that show “ionization alarms may not go off even when a room is filled with smoke.”<\/p>\n

“One-third of all fire deaths in the U.S. could have been prevented by switching to photoelectric alarms,” Fleming said.<\/p>\n

In addition, Fleming insists, “Most consumers are not aware that smoke detectors may not go off even though there is so much smoke you and I may not be able to see each other.”<\/p>\n

Even so, leading groups most involved with smoke alarm standards and testing, such as Underwriters Laboratories<\/strong><\/a> and the National Fire Protection Association<\/a> ,<\/strong>\u00a0insist\u00a0 both types are equally safe to use.<\/p>\n

“Our standards permit both types of alarms,” said Chris Dubay, NFPA’s Vice-President of Codes and Standards.<\/p>\n

“What we do know is that a significant amount of fires start as flaming, which one type of technology is better at and a significant amount of fires start as smoldering which a different type of technology is better at,” Dubay\u00a0said. “The problem we have is that you can’t always tell what kind of fire you’re going to have.”<\/p>\n

newsnet5.com’s investigation also found U.S. smoke alarm standards are not safe enough for others.<\/p>\n

David Isaacs helped write Australian smoke alarm standards and said, “We determined that the only detectors that would give a measured, high probability of warning in time for the egress paths to remain safe were photoelectric.”<\/p>\n

Isaccs argues U.S. consumers are being left in the dark without sufficient information about both technologies that has been known for decades.<\/p>\n

While experts disagree on types of technologies, fire victims point tragic results.<\/p>\n

Dean Dennis lost his daughter and four of her friends in a 2003 house fire near the Ohio State campus.<\/p>\n

Dennis says only ionization alarms were found in the home.<\/p>\n

His daughter died of smoke inhalation.<\/p>\n

As a result, Dennis has launched his own campaign to urge municipalities and state government to back only photoelectric alarms.<\/p>\n

And in September of 2013, a father and six children died in a trailer fire in Tiffin, Ohio.<\/p>\n

Reports indicated the alarm was sounding \u2014 but no one got out in time.<\/p>\n

newsnet5.com’s investigation found the alarm the family depended on was an ionization alarm – the very type that often responds more slowly to smoke.<\/p>\n

All seven died of smoke inhalation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n