# Failure to communicate



## cda (Mar 27, 2016)

""""The change took effect Jan. 1 but has not been widely reported. At a recent meeting of municipal code officials, a few representatives said their municipalities had started enforcing the new rule but several said they were not familiar with the change."""

Anyone else requiring dual technology???

Ohio has become the fifth state to require photoelectric smoke alarms in new homes.

  In the state’s first official acknowledgement that traditional ionization alarms are insufficient, new building codes require both ionization and photoelectric alarms on all floors of homes.

  The rule applies to new homes. It does not affect existing homes unless a renovation or addition involves the two areas where detectors are specifically required: bedrooms and hallways outside bedrooms.

  For years, experts have called for photoelectric detectors instead of — or in addition to — ionization detectors. Studies have shown that photoelectric devices are better at detecting smoldering fires, the most common home fire.

  Ionization detectors are considered better at detecting flames, although they are also more likely to be triggered by harmless kitchen smoke or steam.

  “After doing the research, it was determined that both technologies are better than one,” said Debbie Ohler, staff engineer with the Ohio Board of Building Standards.

  “Each type of technology is best for a certain type of fire. Since we can’t predict what type of fire may occur, we felt it was best to have both technologies represented.”

  Skip Walker, a California home inspector who has helped lead calls for photoelectric alarms, said he doesn’t believe ionization alarms are necessary, but nonetheless welcomed Ohio’s code change.

  “The most important part is that they are getting photoelectric alarms in the houses,” he said. “ They will save lives.”

  Walker hopes other states follow Ohio's lead.

  “If we could wave our magic wand and change them all, our fire death rate would drop 40 percent overnight,” he said. “There’s an enormous amount of data that show photoelectric is superior.”

  The change comes with a cost to builders and consumers. A basic hardwired photoelectric detector at Lowe’s costs $16, about three times the price of a comparable ionization detector. Detectors featuring both technologies cost $50.

  The change took effect Jan. 1 but has not been widely reported. At a recent meeting of municipal code officials, a few representatives said their municipalities had started enforcing the new rule but several said they were not familiar with the change.

  Ohler said the change was also prompted by the need to reconcile discrepancies between the state building code and some Ohio municipal codes — including Cincinnati’s — requiring photoelectric detectors.

_jweiker@dispatch.com_ 

_@JimWeiker_


----------



## mark handler (Mar 27, 2016)

https://blog.allstate.com/ionization-vs-photoelectric-smoke-alarm/

Ionization vs. photoelectric smoke alarms

The most common smoke alarm type, Ionization alarms are generally more responsive to a flaming fire (for instance, when a lit candle tips over and ignites a towel), according to Underwriters Laboratories. These alarms use “ions,” or electrically charged particles, to detect smoke in the air. UL says that, because they are inexpensive, ionization detectors are the most commonly found smoke alarms in North American homes.

The second type of detector is the photoelectric smoke alarm, which uses a light beam to detect the presence of smoke. According to UL, these alarm types are more effective at sounding when a fire originates from a smoldering source, like a lit cigarette that falls into a couch cushion. Smoldering fires can fill a home with dangerous gases before a fire ever erupts.

Which smoke alarm type is best?

So, which alarm to choose? While both types of smoke detectors are designed to detect any house fire, no matter the source, each technology has its advantages and can offer an earlier warning over the other, depending on the origin of a fire.

The challenge is that it’s impossible to predict which type of fire could erupt in your home, which is why the National Fire Protection Association says the best protection is offered by having both alarm technologies in your home.

There are a couple of ways to get this done.

If your existing detectors are ionization smoke alarms, you can purchase photoelectric smoke alarms and install one next to each ionization unit. If you don’t know what type you have, check your owner’s manual. (Or, try this tip: Take the smoke alarm down and look at the back. Because ionization alarms all contain a trace amount of a radioactive material, Americium 241, they contain a warning about the material on each alarm. If you see this warning on your device, you have an ionization unit.)

Another option: If budget allows, consider replacing all of your existing smoke alarms with dual-sensor devices, which combine both ionization and photoelectric technologies in a single unit.

Maintenance is key, regardless of type

Knowing the type of smoke alarm you have is clearly an important part of fire safety, but experts also warn that, regardless of type, smoke alarms won’t protect you if they’re not working properly.

According to UL, an estimated 20 percent of homes have detectors that do not work or are missing batteries, and two-thirds of reported residential fire deaths occur in homes without working smoke alarms, or with no smoke alarms at all.

So, start by making sure you have the right number of smoke alarms in the right places. The NFPA recommends a smoke detector in every bedroom, outside each separate sleeping area and on every level of your home (smoke rises, so install them high on the walls).


----------



## rogerpa (Mar 29, 2016)

> If your existing detectors are ionization smoke alarms, you can purchase photoelectric smoke alarms and install one next to each ionization unit.





> If budget allows, consider replacing all of your existing smoke alarms with dual-sensor devices, which combine both ionization and photoelectric technologies in a single unit.


This advice creates a potential code conflict.

2015 IRC states:

R314.3.1 Installation near cooking appliances.

Smoke alarms shall not be installed in the following locations unless this would prevent placement of a smoke alarm in

a location required by Section R314.3.

1.* Ionization *smoke alarms shall not be installed less than* 20 feet* (6096 mm) horizontally from a permanently installed

cooking appliance.

2. Ionization smoke alarms with an alarm-silencing switch shall not be installed less than 10 feet (3048 mm)

horizontally from a permanently installed cooking appliance.

3.* Photoelectric *smoke alarms shall not be installed less than *6 feet* (1828 mm) horizontally from a permanently

installed cooking appliance.


----------



## conarb (Mar 29, 2016)

Roger:

Is that new to the 2015, do you know when it showed up in the code? Too bad it doesn't say sprinklers as well as alarms.  Remember when we were having the fights here in the old bulletin board they were deliberately placing a sprinkler head over the stove, I was stating that it was wrong, that on commercial jobs the fire sprinkler engineers were going to great lengths to rout the black steel pipe around cooking facilities, and here they were proposing plastic pipe right up to and adding a sprinkler over the cooking facilities. About that time a guy at Lake Tahoe was killed when he had a cook top fire, he took the frying pan and started carrying it to the sink and a sprinkler went off right over him causing an explosion, the firemen here still insisted that a sprinkler go over cooking facilities. One guy here recommended putting a "misting head" over the cook top, but even that wasn't over the code. That was so idiotic, every school child is taught not to put water on a grease fire. Later we had a grease fire in an apartment here, in the papers and on the news there was a fire marshal at the scene telling reporters gathered around him: "If only there was a fire sprinkler over the cook top the fire would have been immediately put out." Somehow I think the first thing a fire marshal does when he's notified of a fire is to call the press and get the TV camera trucks out there.


----------



## rogerpa (Mar 29, 2016)

Dick:

New in 2015 as a result of proposal RB 156-13.

Reason: This proposal is submitted by the ICC Building Code Action Committee (BCAC) and the ICC Fire Code Action Committee (FCAC). These ICC committees were established by the ICC Board of Directors to pursue opportunities to improve and enhance an assigned International Codes or portion thereof. This includes both the technical aspects of the codes as well as the code content in terms of scope and application of referenced standards. Since its inception in July, 2011, the these committees have held 6 open meetings and numerous workgroup meetings which included members of the committees as well as any interested party to discuss and debate the proposed changes. Related documentation and reports are posted on the CAC website at: http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CAC/Pages/default.aspx

This proposal is intended to reduce nuisance alarms attributed to locating smoke alarms in close proximity to cooking appliances and bathrooms in which steam is produced. The proposed provisions are based on the findings in the Task Group Report - Minimum Performance Requirements for Smoke Alarm Detection Technology - February 22, 2008, and are consistent with similar requirements included in Section 29.8.3.4 of the 2010 and 2013 editions of NFPA 72.


----------

