Smoke alarm failures prompt Vt. Senate bill

February 1, 2008 

By Peter Hirschfeld Vermont Press Bureau 
MONTPELIER - State lawmakers are increasingly concerned that the smoke
alarms installed in about 90 percent of Vermont homes may not offer
adequate protection against some fires.

Smoldering fires - slow-burning events commonly caused by electrical
shortages or cigarettes dropped in a sofa - are responsible for about 35
percent of fire fatalities nationwide.

But ionization smoke alarms, the type installed in the vast majority of
households, perform measurably worse than photoelectric alarms in
smoldering fires.

In what has emerged as one of the surprise issues in the Statehouse this
session, Vermont senators are considering a bill that would require the
use of photoelectric smoke alarms in Vermont homes and businesses.

"I'm leaning toward photoelectric only, because the weight of the
evidence strongly supports photoelectric alarms only," Sen. Vince
Illuzzi, an Essex County Republican, said Tuesday.The issue arrived in
Montpelier on the backs of Barre City firefighters. Their investigation
into a fatal fire that killed four young children and a mother revealed
shortcomings in ionization technology that allow smoldering fires to go
undetected by conventional alarms. In that fire, firefighters said,
three hardwired ionization alarms failed to activate before it was too
late.

In several tests the photoelectric devices have proven far more
effective at rousing sleeping occupants from smoke-filled homes.

"People are dying from this, and they're dying because they're not
protected," Barre City Firefighter Matthew Cetin told legislators.

On Tuesday, representatives from two national fire safety organizations
confirmed the superiority of photoelectric alarms in smoldering fires.

"Ionization alarms responded faster in our study to flaming fires, which
produce smaller (smoke) particles," said John Drengenberg, manager of
consumer affairs for Underwriter Laboratories, Inc. "Whereas
photoelectric alarms responded faster to smoldering fires, those
producing larger smoke particles."

Robert Duval, senior fire investigator for the National Fire Protection
Association, said his organization, based on the 2007 U.L. study, has
recommended, on an interim basis at least, that homeowners install both
photoelectric and ionization alarms.

Both Drengenberg and Duval said that ionization alarms activate more
quickly in flaming fires and that they continue to play a critical role
in fire safety.

But the endorsement of photoelectric alarms by both safety organizations
hasn't appeased the Boston firefighter largely responsible for bringing
the issue to the fore in Vermont.

Joseph Fleming, deputy chief of the Boston Fire Department, has been
studying smoke alarms for more than 20 years. Evidence proving the
relative ineffectiveness of ionization detectors, he said, has existed
for more than a decade. Undue influence by smoke alarm manufacturers, he
said, led Underwriters Laboratory and the NFPA to suppress that
information.

The 2007 "smoke characterization" study that prompted the NFPA to
recommend photoelectric alarms, Fleming said, shouldn't have come as a
surprise to either organization.

"This supposedly new information isn't new at all," Fleming said.
"They've known about this since at least 1998, and right now they're
just trying to cover their tracks."

Fleming said influence by manufacturers of ionization alarms compelled
U.L. and the NFPA to disregard research suggesting photoelectric alarms
are more effective than ionization alarms. Now, fearing liability,
Fleming said, the safety organizations are standing by the effectiveness
of ionization alarms, even though he believes photoelectric alarms
supplant the need for ionization alarms entirely.

"Now they're going to say you need both, which they're doing to protect
themselves and manufacturers against the liability claims they'll face
from the thousands of people who have needlessly died in fires," Fleming
said.

The ionization alarms perform only marginally better than photoelectric
alarms in flaming fires, according to Fleming, and they are far more
prone to "nuisance" alarms. Nuisance alarms - triggered by steam from a
shower or smoke from burnt toast, for instance - lead people to
disconnect smoke alarms and consequently increase their chances of dying
in a fire.

"The combination ionization-photoelectric alarms will actually kill more
people, because the ions are more likely to cause nuisance alarms, and
people will just disconnect them," Fleming said. "If we go with all
photoelectric, it's good for flaming fires, smoldering fires, and you
don't get the nuisance alarms."

Illuzzi said he is compelled by the weight of Fleming's evidence.

"There is clearly a close relationship between manufacturers and
Underwriters Laboratory," Illuzzi said. "There's a strong suggestion
that U.L. and NFPA are concerned about declaring ionization alarms
faulty because it will open up product liability lawsuits against
manufacturers."
 
IAFC/NFPA Info:
 
http://www.iafc.org/associations/4685/files/ABCNews_report_Jan08.pdf
 
Courtesy of www.FireFighterCloseCalls.com