Kidde and First Alert ?

[Robert Rose]

Hello,

Are these two outfits the same ?

One more reliable than the other ?

Thanks, R.

[Dean Hoffman]

Don't know.

Consumer Reports has the First Alert 3120B and the Kidde PI2010 rated the same. The Kidde is subject to recall though. Both are hardwired with battery backup. They rate the First Alert SA320CN and the Kidde PI9010 the same. The Kidde is subject to recall. The second pair are battery only. Stay away from ionization detectors. The previous four detectors are all rated in the upper 80s. The best ionization detectors are rated at 55.

[Bud]

If you want cancer, be sure to put one in your home. All smoke detectors contain a radioactive substance. They MIGHT save you in a fire, while they WILL cause you cancer. I had a building inspection done in my home, and they told me I was required to have smoke detectors in my home. I told him that if he even brought one of them cancer causing things within 100 yards from my home, I would have him arrested. He said it's required to have them in all homes. I told him to setup a court case, because I refuse to follow that requirement, and to feel free to write that on my report, along with the reason I refused. He wrote it down and he didn't say any more about it.

[makolber]

no there are various types, some use optical sensors.

If you are concerned about the low level of radioactivity I suggest you get the optical type and also do not bring any bananas into your house.

m

[Peter]

The risk from the radiation released by a properly installed ionization smoke detector is essentially nil. The radiation released is alpha radiation, which is so low in energy that is completely shielded by a thin sheet of paper, and certainly by the capsule containing it within the smoke alarm. Even if the smoke alarm were broken apart, your skin would shield you completely. In any case, the total radiation released is less than 1/3 typical background radiation, and much less than you receive from a cosmic rays during a single typical commercial airline flight. In terms of absolute risk, your risk of dying from a house fire, an automobile trip of even a few blocks, lightning strike, or insect or snake bite is exponentially higher than the risk of dying from the radiation from a smoke detector. Smoke detector save lives.

[None]

+1

You can lead the nymshifter to knowledge, but you can't make him learn

[trader_4]

I'd add to your analysis that there is no evidence that smoke detectors cause cancer. But there is overwhelming evidence that without a smoke detector, many people die needlessly in home fires. It's rather bizarre when someone let's an imaginary threat outweigh their concern for the real threat.

[Vic Smith]

Reminds me of when I picked up my Uncle to go lake fishing with my '64 Bug. It was my first car with seatbelts. My buddy had recently been killed when his car tossed him out and rolled on him, so I started using the belt. When I fastened my belt, he looked at me like I was a crazy man. He actually yelled at me "What the hell are you doing with that thing!?" I told him about my buddy, and how his legs were cut off and he bled out. He then threw his clincher. "What if you go in the river?!" I didn't even bother arguing with him, just picked up the beer and went fishing. I didn't even suggest he fasten his belt, and he never did.

[Peter]

My late father-in-law was still driving in 2011 when he was 95. He lived in Florida. Absolutely refused to wear seat belts because he was convinced that if he ended up in one of the many canals near his home, he would drown. We could hear the ding-ding-ding of his car's warning chime while he was speaking to us on his cell phone as he drove (!!!) even though he swore that he was buckled up. He was quite hard of hearing and the chime never bothered him. When we told him that we could hear the seat belt warning chime on the phone, he'd say he "forgot" to buckle up and couldn't hear the chime. He was a real firecracker. Fortunately he never had an accident, but had to give up driving soon afterwards when he developed dementia. He wanted to live to be 100 but didn't quite make it.

[Bud]

Maybe they have some that do not contain radioactive materials now. Originally they all had radioactivity.

But if this is true, then the inspector should have mentioned that to me. However, I have yet to find any building inspector who knows anything about construction, wiring, plumbing, etc.

Then again, a friend has a store and I do some small repairs for him. He said the inspectors told him to correct the way his window signs are plugged in. There are 5 signs plugged into two 3-way plugs in one outlet. Each sign is LED and draws less than 20W per sign. Surely not a hazard, but the inspector said the 3-ways are not allowed. So I got a power strip and used that instead.

What gets me, is that directly overhead from those signs was a junction box with the wires sticking out, wirenuts exposed, and no cover on that box. It was that way when he bought the building. The inspector said nothing about that. Yet I know that by code that box needs to have a cover on it. When I went to get the power strip, I bought a cover for that box at the same time and fixed that, even though it was not required by the inspector. (If nothing else, it looks better).

Inspectors are just taught ot look for certain things, and 3-way plugs are on their "bad list" even if they are only powering some very low wattage LED signs. But it would not matter if they were 10W signs or

1000W fryers, the inspectors dont know the difference. They just see the 3-way and condemn it, regardless of it's use.

[Vic Smith]

Yeah, I suspect many old-timers never wore a seatbelt. In Florida, for canals, now that most cars have electric windows, it's suggested you have a center punch to break out a window. Unsnapping a seatbelt should be the least of your problems. Though I was high-lined from my destroyer to a cruiser one time in the north Atlantic, and couldn't unsnap myself from the bosun's chair when I arrived. I made sure to study the belt buckle before the return trip. That chair is heavy, and I would have sunk like a rock, despite the vest.

[Bud]

I'm not sure exactly when cars first starting having seat belts, but I think it was in the 1970s. Before that, cars did not have them. My first cars were from the 60s, and they did not have seat belts. Nor were they required back then.

In my opinion, seatbelts are just revenue makers for law enforcement. I can not see how they could make it a law to require them, since it's only for the driver or passenger's own safety. But they did it because they know it would be a money maker. I dont mind wearing them on the highway when I'm driving at 55 or greater. But in town, when speed limits are 30mph or less, it makes no sense to use them. I find it really annoying when I am driving around town and stopping at a store every 2 minutes and have to keep fussing with them seatbelts. But I know that if I get caught without one, I can get a fine. I think that is just wrong!

[Vic Smith]

I don't feel comfortable without a seat belt, law or no law. Keeps you in a driving position. Not so important now, but was with bench seats. Had a buddy with a '58 Chevy take a corner and he was actually sitting in my lap, hanging onto to the wheel with his left hand, until he could pull himself back.

[bob]

Thank a democrat for another law taking away your right to choose.

The first seat belt law was a federal law, Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, which took effect on January 1, 1968, that required all vehicles (except buses) to be fitted with seat belts in all designated seating positions.

[trader_4]

I remember one of the big arguments from those opposed to seat belts at the time was that if you had a crash and the car caught fire, you might not be able to get out of the seatbelt. The fact that in many crashes that severe without the belt you'd be unconscious, dead or otherwise unable to get out anyway escaped them. There were probably some odd accidents where a seatbelt was a disadvantage, but overall they have saved a lot of lives and more serious injuries.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Putting on a seatbelt takes just seconds and is just a habit. I guess it is harder if you fight the idea of having to wear one.

I started wearing one before the law was if effect. I also walked away from a pretty serious accident that could have tossed me out. Maybe it should be choice, not law, but it is the right choice.

[trader_4]

They first started appearing in 1961 and were mandatory for 1968 model year cars.

Well, at least you're consistent with your position on smoke detectors.

I

They were introduced as a safety requirement by the feds. The only penalties would have been on manufacturers if they did not implement them. They all did. It was only decades later that penalties started to come into place for not wearing one. You could argue that the motive is revenue for that, but the evidence is overwhelming that seatbelts save lives.

I dont mind wearing them on the

With speed limits of 30 MPH, people are doing ~40. Take a look at a 40 MPH head on collision or even 40 into a tree and get back to us. I would agree that it should be your right to not wear one if you don't want to.

[trader_4]

Something I recently learned while working on the BMW and I would assume it's not unique to just BMWs, is that the airbag deployment algorithm uses whether the seatbelts are buckled or not to decide when and how to deploy the airbags. They basically have a crash severity rating that's made real time as it's happening. Starting with the lowest level impact, it will do nothing. Moving up in intensity, if the seatbelt is buckled it will not deploy the frontal airbag, but if it's not buckled then it will do a stage 1 deployment, where it does a lower velocity inflation. Next level up in crash intensity, it will do a stage 1 if the belt is buckled, a stage 2, if it's not.

So, you could have the same crash with a seatbelt on and not have the airbag go off at all, where with no belt it will fire. And if it fires in other crashes, it could fire less powerfully with a seatbelt, which is presumably safer, less likely to injure the person. Could be a really good thing if you had a seatbelt on in one of those Takata airbag cars that was killing some people when it fired.

[CRNG]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 07:50:38 -0400, Robert Rose wrote in

I would go with Kidde.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Mostly as an option but my '62 Corvair had the attachments in place and it was mandatory to have them. Made it asy to put a set of belts in. Lap only, no chest yet.