Seatbelts save lives and airbags save lives; seatbelts and airbags together save even more lives. The automotive industry realized that, and now all new cars include both. But having one does not negate the importance of the other.

I thought about the either/or of seatbelts and airbags when I heard about the impassioned controversy surrounding smoke detectors, particularly the use of ionization versus photoelectric alarms. I've been caught in a firestorm of e-mails alleging errors in NFPA, UL and NIST testing of the two.

According to the NFPA, the most prevalent and least expensive (under $10) smoke alarms are the ionization-type alarms. Such alarms have a small amount of radioactive material that ionizes the air, thus causing current to flow between two electrically charged plates. When smoke enters the chamber, it disrupts the flow of ions, reducing the flow of current and activating the alarm.

Photoelectric-type alarms aim a light source into a sensing chamber at an angle away from the sensor. Smoke enters the chamber, reflects light onto the sensor and triggers the alarm.

In the mid-70s, NIST tests concluded that ionization alarms provided the most economical warning system. But as Fresno (Calif.) Fire Inspector Justin Beal recently wrote, “How has the interior of the average home changed over the last 40 years? The answer is, in a word, ‘substantially’.”

When I attended Underwriters Laboratories' seminar on smoke a few years ago, I was dumbfounded by the rapid increase in fire and toxic fumes released from synthetic materials in home and office furnishings. Would NIST still recommend ionization over photoelectric today?

Tests have shown that photoelectric alarms respond slightly faster to smoldering fires, while ionization alarms respond slightly faster to flaming fires. One drawback of ionization alarms is they often set off nuisance alarms; consequently, too many people simply disable the alarm, leaving their families and homes vulnerable.

Photoelectric alarms are gaining acceptance abroad. In June 2006, after live-fire testing and research by Victorian University of Technology, the Australian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council took a stand that all residential buildings should be equipped with photoelectric smoke alarms, as “ionization smoke alarms may not operate in time to alert occupants early enough to escape from smoldering fires.” Australia mandates the use of photoelectric smoke alarms in commercial buildings and efforts are underway to mandate their use in homes.

Now, smoke-alarm manufacturers have created dual ionization and photoelectric alarms that purport to offer maximum protection for both flaming and smoldering fires — but which come at twice the cost.

All of this debate over what type of smoke detector is best is counter-productive and a big waste of precious time. What really matters is getting more Americans to use smoke alarms.

Consequently, it's time for the controversy surrounding smoke detectors to be resolved. Leave politics, profits and other agendas out of this. The primary goal of fire and emergency services is to protect and save lives. The American fire service needs to educate the public that smoke alarms — whichever type — save lives, and it needs to teach citizens how to install the right smoke detector in the right location for their dwelling.

Maybe there is no one answer because no one can predict whether a fire will smolder or flame first. But in a perfect world, every home would have an ionization and/or photoelectric smoke alarm, a carbon-monoxide detector and a residential fire sprinkler system. It's not a perfect world yet — so get to work.

Related Stories

• White Paper Addresses Smoke Alarm Gap
• NFPA Releases Two Smoke-Alarm Studies
• You Can't Always Blame Missing Smoke Alarms