For several years, an interesting set of questions has revolved around residential smoke alarms, their technology, and which type is best for protecting the general population from fires. As background, let me say that overall, smoke alarms have been one of the biggest success stories for the fire service that came out of the “America Burning” study of the 1970s. Prior to that landmark publication, in 1975 alone there were nearly 13,000 fire deaths recorded in the United States.
Thirty-five years later in 2010, that number was less than 3,000, and at least one fire-prevention expert recently told me that the number in 2011 may be closer to 2,000. In comparison, since 1975 the population of our country has grown from 205 million to more than 311 million. The single most important factor in the reduction of fire fatalities has been smoke alarms and the constant reminder by the fire service that they — along with planned and practiced home exit drills — save lives.
Despite this success, there are signs that we might be able to do even better. Campaigns geared toward those “hard-to-reach” groups within our population, who either remain unaware or for other reasons choose not to have or maintain smoke alarms for their protection, have been tried with varying success. Smoke alarms designed to meet the needs of the physically or mentally impaired are another issue. But newer on the scene, yet equally as important, is a segment within the fire prevention community that is advocating a change in smoke alarm technology, from the traditional ionization to photoelectric devices, citing their quicker response in the incipient stage of most fires.
Adding to this question are several other issues:
1] The concern over the lack of response by children below the age of 15 to the standard alerting sound emitted by either type of smoke alarm.
2] The current lack of definitive data from NFIRS regarding the types of smoke alarms in use and the myriad potential causes when smoke alarms fail to alert the residents they’re supposed to protect.
3] The need for interconnectivity among the smoke alarms within a residence. Technology exists both with hard-wired or battery-powered smoke alarms to alert residents simultaneously, i.e., if one alarm activates, every alarm throughout the residence sounds, providing notification to residents in every part of the house.
4] Finally, there is the question of a smoke alarm’s life cycle. How long does a smoke alarm last without replacement? Most agree, that all smoke alarms need to be replaced every 10 years, and some manufacturers have come forward with tamper-proof smoke alarms using 10-year lithium batteries that do not need replacement over their life cycle. Is that design a preferred method over the yearly changeover of battery-operated smoke alarms?
Historically, photoelectric smoke alarms were developed first in the 1930s, but their residential use was hampered by the need for a larger power source rather than batteries. Most early photoelectric alarms needed a minimum of 115 volt A/C to operate. That relegated early photoelectric alarm use mainly to commercial settings. Ionization technology first appeared in the 1970s but those early detectors used very expensive and cumbersome batteries in the 10- to 15-volt range. Only later was the voltage reduced to 9 volts and the cumbersome batteries replaced by the more readily available smaller ones very familiar to most households and used extensively in the transistor radios of the times. The improvements in the ionization power source reduced the size and the cost of smoke alarms, making them affordable and desirable in most households over the following decades.
In recent years, advancements in photoelectric technology have allowed manufacturers to make them more affordable for residential use in a variety of power supplies similar to those in ionization alarms: affordable batteries replaced annually, 10-year lithium batteries, or an A/C power source with battery back-up. A group of photoelectric technology advocates point to data on the number of fatal fires where smoke alarms appear to have failed in alerting the occupants. They believe that today’s incipient fires are slower to flame and that photoelectric alarms will activate before a smoldering fire breaks into a flaming stage.
Herein lies the interesting part concerning the current NFIRS data — smoke alarm performance only is required to be reported when a structure fire occurs, and then the choices are limited to just three: alarm present and alerted occupants; alarm present and did not alert occupants; or unknown. As a result the current data fails to indicate the type of smoke alarm (ionization or photoelectric); the type of power supply (A/C with battery back-up, replaceable battery or 10-year battery); or the reason for the alarm’s failure to activate — e.g., was it intentionally disabled, was the battery missing, was the device installed improperly or in an improper location?
While addressing these smoke alarm issues, should we also address the awakening of children? For instance, the sleep cycle for children under 15 reportedly is much deeper than that of an adult? Given that, is the current alerting sound sufficient at 90 dB? Should it be changed to another sound or to a separate simultaneous enhancement that can awaken both children and adults, if such a device exists?
In July 2011, Ohio State Fire Marshal Larry Flowers announced the creation of a smoke-alarm task force and asked me to serve as chair of this group. We will recommend how citizens can best protect themselves and their property through available smoke alarm technologies. Several states, most notably California, and several national organizations have addressed these issues to varying degrees and have issued position papers. The Ohio task force will examine the various research, data and recommendations regarding the use and placement of photoelectric and ionization smoke alarms in residential properties. This is a vital task, as recent statistics show that up to 90% of fires in Ohio that result in fatalities or injuries occur in homes that lack working smoke alarms.
The task force has been meeting for more than six months and has heard from many interested parties who provided written or oral testimony, and in some cases research data. We hope to submit our recommendations to the fire marshal in early 2012. I’ll keep you posted.
Chief Robert R. Rielage, CFO, EFO, MIFireE, is the chief of Wyoming (Ohio) Fire–EMS, a 78-member combination fire department bordering Cincinnati. He previously served as the fire marshal of the state of Ohio.
Related links:
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
