Current smoke detectors cause deaths.

[Durgan]

New rules on smoke detectors. There are several issues.

Many current smoke detectors do not have a switch to temporarly turn off a false alarm. People remove the batteries to stop the alarm and forget to re-install, hence have no protection when required. Current smoke detectors give a false sense of protection, since they are often not in working order because of the way they are made. Many are grossly over-priced. I suggest the price shoudl be subsidized to insure everyone can afford them.

Rules should be:
Every detector should have a working pause switch, say with a 15 minute delay before becoming sutomatically active. Every detector should have a alarm test push button switch.

Every household should have at least one detector connected to the mains power. either hard wired or plug in, preferably hard wired.

Every household should have battery operated detectors in various location thoughout the household.

There should be at least one CO detector in the household.

How is this present ill-defined regulation going to be enforced? Houses are private property. Inspectors are only allowed inside at the invitation of the owner in the case of a private dwelling.

Durgan.


Hwere is the URL to a summary from the Toronto Star.
http://liaisana.notlong.com
Each household must install a working smoke alarm on each floor, including outside all sleeping areas.

 

[no1important]

RE: Current smoke detecto


Ontario orders smoke alarms on every floor

A teaser:

All households in Ontario must have smoke detectors on every floor before the end of the winter, the province's community safety minister said on Tuesday.

Under changes to the Ontario Fire Code unveiled by Monte Kwinter, all homes in the province must have the devices installed on each level, including basements, by March 1, 2006

Smoke detectors must also be installed in any bedroom where a person sleeps with the door closed. Detectors that are more than 10 years old will also have to be replaced.

An estimated 15 per cent of Ontario homes currently don't have smoke detectors. [/end of teaser]

I agree with this 100%. No excuse not to have a smoke detector (and carbon monoxide detector as well) and if for some reason a person can not afford them, they should get them for either free or on a payment plan from provincial government. I would like to see this law nation wide

 

[#juan]

We have two in our house

The one just outside the kitchen can be a pain in the neck when you accidentally spill a drop of something on a hot stove element. I suppose it proves they work if nothing else. They are a good idea.

 

[bevvyd]

We have one hard wired outside the bathroom, I wish they should distinguish between steam and smoke. But like you said, it proves they work if nothing else.

 

[#juan]

We've now gotten used to it Bev.

When it first happened I was standing right under the thing. I think it gave me a dozen or so new grey hairs instantly... :wink: :lol:

 

[TenPenny]

That's lovely; all new houses require at least one smoke detector on each habitable level, all direct wired to the panel, all wired on the same circuit.

Most are designed so that if one goes off, all of them go off.

 

[#juan]

That's lovely; all new houses require at least one smoke detector on each habitable level, all direct wired to the panel, all wired on the same circuit.

Ours are hard wired in with a battery back up but they don't go off at the same time. We know they both work.

 

[Durgan]

The Government should have a hard look at the current smoke detectors on the market. I suggest the current detectors need improvements.

Reiterating to some degree:
1. Simple mounting, probably one screw, even stick on, possibly velcro.
2. Shut-off switch and automatic return to full protection after fifteen minutes.
3. Simple push test button.
4. Simple battery replacement procedure. There is a place for mains and battery operated types.
5. Cost should be subsidized with a mail-in rebate.
6. Every household should have at least one CO detector.

I personally know one family of three, mother and two small children, who died in 2002 in Brantford from smoke inhalation . Both smoke detectors had the batteries removed, because of consistent going off when cooking. The batteries are hard to remove and replace, so people get careless and leave them out. Admittedly this is a human problem to some degree, but the manufacturer and approval, if it exists, is also faulty.

Durgan.

 

[#juan]

Why do we need a subsidy? They are not that expensive.


http://www.reliablefire.com/smokedetectors/smokedetectors.html

 

[MMMike]

Why do we need a subsidy? They are not that expensive.

Yeah, but if you rely on people buy smoke detectors for themselves they might waste it on beer and popcorn instead. It would be better for a new government department to be created to go door by door and supply and install these things for you. :wink:

 

[Jay]

:lol:

 

[Durgan]

Why do we need a subsidy? They are not that expensive.
http://www.reliablefire.com/smokedetectors/smokedetectors.html

The above linked detectors have no way to stop a false alarm.These detectors should be removed from the market. I consider the lack of a false alarm button to be one of the main faults of most current detectors. I suggest this is the main reason for people to disconnect the detectors.

The subsidy to insure the less affuent have access to reliable detectors.

It is the "slum" dwellers who are most at risk. Yes, every City in Canada has what most people would consider less than adequate housing, a euphenism for a slum dwelling. Thes are more often than not rental accommodation.

Durgan.

 

[#juan]

It is the "slum" dwellers who are most at risk. Yes, every City in Canada has what most people would consider less than adequate housing, a euphenism for a slum dwelling. Thes are more often than not rental accommodation.

In that case, the slumlord would be paying, right?

 

[Durgan]

It is the "slum" dwellers who are most at risk. Yes, every City in Canada has what most people would consider less than adequate housing, a euphenism for a slum dwelling. Thes are more often than not rental accommodation.

In that case, the slumlord would be paying, right?

You must be making a joke. Slum landlords are in the business to make money. Quite often they are the pillars of our society. In Brantford some are Doctors. They supply the minimium service and zero maintenance. The poor seldom complain and in any event nobody listens.

Durgan.

 

[#juan]

It is the "slum" dwellers who are most at risk. Yes, every City in Canada has what most people would consider less than adequate housing, a euphenism for a slum dwelling. Thes are more often than not rental accommodation.

In that case, the slumlord would be paying, right?

You must be making a joke. Slum landlords are in the business to make money. Quite often they are the pillars of our society. In Brantford some are Doctors. They supply the minimium service and zero maintenance. The poor seldom complain and in any event nobody listens.

Durgan.

If the law now requires smoke detectors, the building owner is responsible for having them installed. Not the tenant.

 

[Durgan]

quote]
If the law now requires smoke detectors, the building owner is responsible for having them installed. Not the tenant.[/quote]

The law doesn't help much when you are dead, dead, dead, in the event of a fire. Responsible slum landlords are few and far between.

Durgan.

 

[#juan]

Durgan.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? If you own a rental building and a new law requires you to have smoke detectors, you have to put them in. There is no choice. If there is a fire and you haven't complied with the law, you are liable for prosecution if there is death or injury.

 

[Summer]

RE: Current smoke detecto

But it's rather too late for the victim by then, isn't it?

 

[Durgan]

Durgan.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? If you own a rental building and a new law requires you to have smoke detectors, you have to put them in. There is no choice. If there is a fire and you haven't complied with the law, you are liable for prosecution if there is death or injury.

Yes, I just saw a case with the old style smoke detectors 2002 Brantford. The landlord's defence was that they had batteries when the person rented the house, 25 days before the fired killed three people. One smoke detector was too badly damaged to test, but it had no batteries. The other one tested OK but there were no batteries. Three people are dead. What is there to understand?

I am suggesting that with properly designed smoke detectors this accident or deaths would not have occurred. The human factor should be removed from the equation.

Many smoke detectors on the market are a hazard. Every smoke detector should have a delay switch to stop the alarm for a period of say fifteen minutes, and reset to full capacity automatically. This would discourage people from removing the battery when an alarm occurs due to cooking amongst other reasons. I suggest almost every person has removed batteries from an alarm at some time or another due to an annoying false alarm problem. Smoke alarms without a delay switch should be removed from the market.

Q.E.D. Next.
Durgan.

 

[Durgan]

CALGARY -- Two young girls died in a house fire yesterday despite frantic efforts by firefighters who battled thick smoke and flames to rescue them from their bedroom.
No mention of Smoke Detecors in this story.
http://upwrispy.notlong.com

Many smoke detectors on the market are a hazard. Every smoke detector should have a delay switch to stop the alarm for a period of say fifteen minutes, and reset to full capacity automatically. This would discourage people from removing the battery when an alarm occurs due to cooking amongst other reasons. I suggest almost every person has removed batteries from an alarm at some time or another due to an annoying false alarm problem. Smoke alarms without a delay switch should be removed from the market.
Durgan.