On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:45:04 PM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:
The children! Won't someone please think of the children?!!!
I'd say when you have codes that go nuts and require crazy numbers
of smoke detectors, you'd have to be an imbecile not to realize that
it's going to lead to non-compliance. If the guy lives alone, who's
children exactly is he supposed to protect?
And it is such a huge job keeping batteries in the smoke detectors.
How can you expect any body to do that just to be safe.
Of course you could simplify the battery problem in couple of ways.
Replace the batteries Spring and Fall or replace all the batteries when
one detector starts beeping. That is so difficult.
On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 6:46:27 PM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:
It's not what I expect anybody else to do. It's what I would prefer
It is when you have 8 of them and some of them are in high ceilings
that you can't reach with a small step ladder. I can see you're one
of the guys that believes in big govt and more regulation, rather than
And obviously you have no explanation for the question I posed, which
is that since these are both AC and battery powered, why does the battery
go out in a year, just as fast or faster than battery only powered ones?
How about thinking about that instead of what I should do?
Actually I believe in safety. That seems to me to be a much
more important point than whether there is some mild inconvenience.
How many television reports have you see where somebody died
in a fire and "there were not working smoke detectors"?
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 9:31:39 AM UTC-4, Bill Gill wrote:
I believe in personal freedom. It's a much more important concept
than inconvenience and guys like you insisting that we all have to
live by your rules in our own house.
And the strawman nonsense is so typical. It's not an issue of not having
smoke detectors. It's just that I said I'd prefer to just have AC powered
ones that don't have battery backup. Is that so radical and unsafe? For
the record, since you brought it up, despite all the laws and all the
ruminating, there are still plenty of fires where people
die where there aren't working smoke detectors. Evey one of them that I've
seen, it was a case where there were either no smoke detectors, or battery
smoke detectors with dead batteries. Not a single one where it was an
AC only detector and the cause of the fatality was that it didn't have a
battery backup. Since you have such strong opinions in favor of requiring
battery backup you should be able to provide us with those numbers and
examples where a battery backup would have made a difference.
'Cuz they're a poorly designed (read "cheap to build") and don't
actually cut the battery (completely) out when A/C is on nor use
rechargeable batteries would be the likely cause...
I've not looked, but I'd think such a unit would be readily available
altho undoubtedly at a somewhat higher price point. There are just the
minimal one each floor of the old battery-powered type here as nothing's
been modified since all the recent Code changes. So, that's just three
and the once't a year deal isn't so bad as there are no cathedral
ceilings, etc., ...
_Every_ component has an impact on price for consumer-priced goods when
amplified by the numbers.
I don't _know_ it's the case precisely with the particular units but I'd
venture it's a reasonable conjecture.
Do you have the actual vendor/model number handy?
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 9:33:57 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
I think that a unit that used a LSD NiMH 9v battery and integral charger would be a great idea. (such a thing exists, I use them, Tenergy and Maha at least make them...) however the higher price would likely drive off contractors from using them.
I am not certain if that would violate code as currently written, I'd have to research that. Something like that would likely have to go through a NRTL testing/approval process...
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 1:45:22 PM UTC-4, N8N wrote:
Good to see that apparently someone has a better solution. Curious though,
if they are selling them and you are using them, why would you think it wouldn't
meet code? IDK what the code says exactly, but I'd expect it to say that you
have to have AC+battery, but not be so specific to rule out rechargeable.
On Wednesday, October 1, 2014 1:48:46 PM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
r would be a great idea. (such a thing exists, I use them, Tenergy and Mah
a at least make them...) however the higher price would likely drive off co
ntractors from using them.
ave to research that. Something like that would likely have to go through
a NRTL testing/approval process...
I meant that I have used LSD NiMHs, but not in smoke detectors, not that th
ere were any detectors on the market that were designed to use them. It wo
uld seem to be a nice maintenance-free solution that would last 5-6 years i
f a detector were specifically designed to utilize and float charge the NiM
Hs. Or why even limit to that? Li-Ions would be a nominal 3.7V so two of
those (16340? or even smaller?) would be 7.4V or thereabouts which hopefull
y would be enough to run a smoke detector if designed around it.
In the meantime, does Energizer still make a lithium 9V battery? That woul
d be my solution for difficult to maintain smoke detectors; those batteries
have higher capacity and longer shelf life than alkalines. At a higher co
st, of course...
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.
I have an old baby Ben clock I now use for a radiation calibrator. Used to
sleep next to it. Second most powerful radiator in my house. An old pentax
lens has the highest count with uranium oxide coating.
BTW, to get the above I took the easy way out and used the calculator at
Selecting Am-241 Gamma (the alpha as noted above can be discounted
entirely as a contributor as long as the source is in the device), and
an estimate of 10-ft average distance from a 1-uCi source, the dose rate
is ~1.5E-6 mrem/hr. Multiplying by 24*364 and assuming an occupancy of
<1/2 time in a given room, the annual dose works out at ~0.0066 mrem
which I rounded to <0.01 mrem. This is still an upper estimate as
there's no shielding at all from the source containment material nor the
materials in the detector between the source itself and the exterior;
only the 1/r-squared geometric factor is included.
On Monday, September 29, 2014 4:03:20 PM UTC-4, Bob wrote:
or-it-could-save-your-life/ 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: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/tobacco.html) 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.
I'm glad that at least in the USA, there doesn't seem to be the tendency
to use public safety to support the economy.
Here in Manitoba, we have an NDP government, which is what Americans
would probably call pro-socialist, or borderline communist.
Whenever Manitoba falls on hard economic times, the government swings
into action finding ways of making the rich provide jobs. And, the
easiest way to do that is to pass laws requiring even higher safety
standards than we already have. For example, you simply pass a city
by-law requiring all apartment blocks to be retrofitted with sprinkler
systems. That keeps all the plumbers busy fitting old buildings with
water sprinklers. And, you pass a city by-law requiring smoke barrier
doorways to be installed on every floor before the stairwells so that
smoke can't get into the stair wells in the event of a fire. That keeps
all the carpenter's busy. And, of course, you pass a city by-law
requiring all smoke detectors to be hard wired rather than battery
operated, and that keeps all the electricians busy.
I'm all for safety, but from what I've seen, safety has been abused
where I live, and it's purpose has been to create jobs rather than
protect people, and it's a sickening situation where the government is
looking for ways to make the rich waste their money on unnecessary
improvements. Already Winnipeg has the highest fire safety standards
for apartment blocks in North America, and come the next economic
downturn, we will undoubtely have the highest earthquake safety
standards for apartment blocks in all of North America too. The fact
that Winnipeg is thousands of miles away from the nearest fault line and
has never had an earthquake is no arguement against ensuring that people
are safe if we do get one, and anyone who disagrees is just too greedy
to realize that safety should come before profits.
Then why stop at 8? Why not 15? Why not a personal one you carry on your
Four smoke detectors within 10 feet for a guy who lives alone, and has two
bedrooms which are not capable of housing anyone (one is an office, the
other is a storage room)? That has nothing to do with safety. It has to do
with "one size fits all".
I bet you report your neighbors who tear off their mattress tags.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.