Ionization Smoke Detector In Toddler's Room: How Safe ?

[Bob]

Hello,

Anyone know of any Links where there is information regarding how safe an Ionization type of Smoke Detector is in a youngster's room.

Looked, but couldn't really find anything specific.

Thanks, Bob

[Stormin Mormon]

In regards to what? Small pieces and choking hazard? Toxic vapors from the plastic? Batteries and shiny objects not to swollow? Radiation from the detector?

. Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus

.

[Don Phillipson]

If not satisfied with what the Underwriters' Laboratory publishes, ask your local Fire Service.

[Stormin Mormon]

They should know about how many kids choke on small parts, ingest batteries, and lick the plastic covers. With toddlers, all those are serious concerns.

. Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus

.

[Tony Hwang]

Hi, You mean detector is lying around on the floor?

[Stormin Mormon]

Right! That's how the toddlers get radiation from the ionizer, and die by the age of five.

. Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus

.

[nestork]

Bob:

I believe that if there were any risk of radiation damage from the smoke detector, there would be warning signs on new detectors saying not to install them in the bedrooms of small children and pregnant women.

However, the smoke detector shouldn't be in the bedroom, it should be outside the bedroom door, but within 4 feet of the bedroom door when looking down from space.

That's because, unless the person is a smoker and is in the habit of smoking in bed, the chances of a fire starting in the bedroom are slim. So, putting a smoke detector in the bedroom, and then sleeping with the bedroom door closed is going to prevent that detector from detecting smoke. By the time it does, your bedroom door is burning and you're trapped in the bedroom with no escape except the bedroom window, if there is one.

Better to put the smoke detector outside the bedroom but within 4 feet of the door. That way if a fire starts in the house at night, the smoke detector will detect the smoke much earlier, and will still be close enough to the bedroom to wake up anyone inside.

And, never put a smoke detector closer than 4 inches to the corners where walls meet ceilings. In a fire, the air in those areas is relatively stagnant, and the smoke detector in those corner areas will be slow to detect smoke.

So, I'd move the smoke detector, but not for the reason you were thinking.

[Stormin Mormon]

I guess we don't have enough information. Does the OP toddler smoke in bed?

Does the OP toddler have a television in bedroom? Those some times catch fire. Does the toddler cook on a hot plate, and use cooking oil?

So much we need to know, to give a wise and considered answer.

. Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus

.

[Bill Gill]

Actually the better way is to put a smoke detector in each room. That way you have a much better chance of realizing there is a fire. I don't actually have a detector in each room, I have one for each ceiling area. The living room, kitchen, and dining room have a continuous ceiling, so I have just one for all 3 of them. The kitchen of course is the most likely place for a fire if there aren't any smokers around.

And don't forget a Carbon Monoxide detector.

Bill

[VinnyB]

I would not put one in the kids room. How about the hallway right outside the kids room?

[Frank]

Just what I was thinking. If you have a toddler that can leap 8 ft to the ceiling, you have a future Olympic champion.

[Pico Rico]

A guy I know lives alone, and when he had minor work done that required a building permit, he was required to install FOUR smoke detectors within about 10 feet of each other - one in each bedroom, by its door, and one in the hallway.

The chirping when the batteries all went low at the same time drove him nuts, so now he has one smoke detector in the hall and three spares.

[N8N]

Current code requires smoke detectors to be installed both inside and outsi de all sleeping rooms, plus at least one detector to be installed on each f loor. In new construction they would also be required to be 120VAC powered with battery backup in each detector and they are required to be connected in tandem.

nate

[Stormin Mormon]

Instead of confusing us with double negatives, can you state that in a positive manner?

. Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus

.

[Stormin Mormon]

installed both inside and outside all sleeping rooms, plus at least one detector to be installed on each floor. In new construction they would also be required to be 120VAC powered with battery backup in each detector and they are required to be connected in tandem.

For a two bedroom raised ranch, that adds up to

36 smoke detectors, 5 monoxide detectors, and 3 different power supplies?

Why not just go live in the car, it's cheaper.

. Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus

.

[trader_4]

side all sleeping rooms, plus at least one detector to be installed on each floor. In new construction they would also be required to be 120VAC power ed with battery backup in each detector and they are required to be connect ed in tandem.

What I'd like to know is why ones that are both AC and battery powered star t beeping to change the battery in only a year or so? It's a royal pain in the ass. You would think the main power would be from the AC and the batt ery would last many years, ie more like the shelf life of the battery. Ins tead I have them needing battery changes just like ones powered only by bat tery. What's up with that? And these are about 7 years old, not 25 year o ld ones.

PS: If it were up to me in my own house, I'd just have AC powered ones. T he small additional protection just isn't worth it to me.

[N8N]

Nope... in the situation you describe there would be three detectors for th e bedrooms and hallway between them (four if they are separated by a long d istance) plus one on the other floor if present. I don't believe CO detect ors are required but having at least one isn't a bad idea.

Personally I don't think it's that onerous a requirement, I actually was go ing to upfit my last house but real life (and the lack of a willing partner to help me pull wire) intervened.

nate

[dpb]

...

You'd have difficulty in discerning its presence at any distance from natural background radiation without very good measurement technique.

The 241Am isotope used is primarily an alpha emitter and the range of alpha particles is only a few inches in free air plus they can't even penetrate a single sheet of paper owing to their size and charge (they're a He atom w/o the two electrons so have +2 proton charge).

There's a plethora of gammas, but the dominant is only about 60 keV which is pretty weak and the overall source intensity of a typical detector source is only about one microcurie, and the exposure as long as you don't remove the source from the device would be less than about

1/100 of a millirem per year.

To put that in context, average background in the US is about 300 mrem/yr.

In order to even know the device was in the room from any practical standpoint of concern you'd have to remove the source from the device itself and bring it near you and keep it there indefinitely. Even then your exposure would be under any occupational or general public limits.

Annual Radiation Dose Limits Agency

Radiation Worker ? 5 rem (NRC, "occupationally" exposed) General Public ? 100 mrem (NRC, member of the public)

General Public ? 10 mrem (EPA, air pathway)

At roughly 0.01 mrem from the device, you can see the fractional relationship to established exposure limits is in the noise level.

Upshot--don't worry about it; radon even with a mitigation system is likely _far_ higher than the amount given off by the smoke detector. Or, as another comparison -- would you not take a transcontinental air trip over concern for the extra radiation dose you'd give the infant? That would add from 0.1-0.5 mrem/hr depending on the route (higher on polar, higher elevation long-haul routes), roughly 10-50X the exposure rate from the smoke detector.

[Chip C]

says that it's a fraction of a percent of what you're getting anyway from earth and space.

If that still doesn't let you sleep nights, put in a photo-electric instead .

Assuming nobody's smoking in the room (which might deliver more radiation t han a smoke detector:

th e most common source of fires in bedrooms is, I believe, electrical arcs fr om mis-wired outlets and plugs and cords getting crushed behind and under f urniture. These can produce slow, smoky fires that overcome the room occupa nts as they sleep, before the smoke ever reaches the hallway, which is why smoke detectors are recommended for *inside* the bedrooms.

But the risk of such fires can be greatly reduced with the use of arc-fault breakers, which have been mandated on bedroom circuits in the US & Canada for several years. Check to see if your place has them.

Probably more common than any of the above are injuries from shoddy drop-si ded cribs, suffocation under ill-fitting mattresses, and strangulation from nearby power or phone cables or drapery draw cords.

Chip C Toronto

[Bill Gill]

Thereby bypassing the safety codes that are imposed to protect us and our children.

Bill