# Smoke detectors



## beach (Nov 15, 2012)

In Maine homes, law doesn


----------



## codeworks (Nov 15, 2012)

the law will now change due to this death, most likely. it is sad that it takes tragedy to get changes put in place.


----------



## cda (Nov 15, 2012)

ok is this a play on words???

yes they are required, as in alot of cities and states.

But once installed, in private residence, what authority does an ahj have to go back and inspect for working detector???  Plus, would you want that law on the book??


----------



## Gregg Harris (Nov 15, 2012)

This seems odd to ad to the story, perhaps there was something wrong with the heating system that spawned the purchase.

Contrary to what authorities reported, Ben Johnson III’s father said that his son was awoken by a smoke and carbon monoxide detector the family had just purchased that evening.


----------



## fatboy (Nov 15, 2012)

1965 house, SD's not required. Maybe they were installed in conjunction with a remodel covered under more current codes. Even in a new home, as cda points out, they have to be there for the final, we can't require the stay or be maintained. Sad......but true.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Nov 16, 2012)

It looks like smoke detectors without batteries weren't the only problem:

State: Deadly Orrington fire caused by cardboard too close to wood stove — Bangor — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine

The codes can't regulate absolute stupidity.  The only way to assure that combustibles are kept away from stoves and smoke detector batteries are changed annually is to have storm troopers inspecting our castles at random.


----------



## forensics (Nov 17, 2012)

Code required Residential Fire Sprinklers would have saved lives and property but the NAHB will fight to the death to build the cheaper homes without regard to the losses of the unfortunate who fall victim to home fires!

Smoke detectors have run their course and fire deaths and property losses will remain a fact of life until we debunk the lies and misconceptions and require fire sprinklers in new housing stocks ...

The HBA will put sprinklers in new homes its just a matter of when!


----------



## Glenn (Nov 17, 2012)

This breaks my heart...

I'm going to double check mine right now.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 17, 2012)

> fire deaths and property losses will remain a fact of life


The un-answered question is what are the acceptable loss numbers before applying more and more regulations

If you believe sprinklers will eliminate all loss of life in a fire then you are living in a dream world.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Nov 19, 2012)

"Code required Residential Fire Sprinklers would have saved lives and property but the NAHB will fight to the death to build the cheaper homes without regard to the losses of the unfortunate who fall victim to home fires!"

The house in question was 47 years old.  Residential sprinklers will make a negligible difference in residential fire deaths for another century or so unless they are also required to be retrofitted to all existing houses.  Retrofit is likely to cost a little more than the often quoted $1.61 per SF, probably more like $11.61 or $16.10!  Not too many people can afford this.


----------



## incognito (Nov 20, 2012)

The fanatical RFS bunch must be a blissful group as they march in unison to the whim of NFPA and NFSA. Considering that the 2009 codes sold so poorly and the 2012 are not doing much better it is very clear what jurisdictions and legitimate code officials think of RFS. It is reprehensible that a special interest group was permitted to buy memberships and in turn saddle the ICC with this BS.


----------



## cda (Nov 20, 2012)

incognito said:
			
		

> The fanatical RFS bunch must be a blissful group as they march in unison to the whim of NFPA and NFSA. Considering that the 2009 codes sold so poorly and the 2012 are not doing much better it is very clear what jurisdictions and legitimate code officials think of RFS. It is reprehensible that a special interest group was permitted to buy memberships and in turn saddle the ICC with this BS.


I can go either way on residential sprinklers.

Yes I prefer them to be there

I guess why not the same arguement for commercial buildings?? Why haven't the no sprinkler people stepped up and tried to get the commercial sprinkler requirement removed from the codes???


----------



## tmurray (Nov 20, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> I can go either way on residential sprinklers.Yes I prefer them to be there
> 
> I guess why not the same arguement for commercial buildings?? Why haven't the no sprinkler people stepped up and tried to get the commercial sprinkler requirement removed from the codes???


Because the higher occupant loads and the occupant's lack of familiarity with the building tells us that the cost of installation vs. lives saved does not constitute an unreasonable investment (well below 3 million dollars per life saved while residential sprinklers cost 38 million dollars per life saved). In jurisdictions that have mandatory sprinklers in single and two family homes the survivability goes up by .1% over a home with working smoke detectors. I would like to see sprinklers in every building, but common sense tells us that spending that much money for a .1% survivability increase should be a decision made by the owners, not a code requirement.


----------



## cda (Nov 20, 2012)

tmurray said:
			
		

> Because the higher occupant loads and the occupant's lack of familiarity with the building tells us that the cost of installation vs. lives saved does not constitute an unreasonable investment (well below 3 million dollars per life saved while residential sprinklers cost 38 million dollars per life saved). In jurisdictions that have mandatory sprinklers in single and two family homes the survivability goes up by .1% over a home with working smoke detectors. I would like to see sprinklers in every building, but common sense tells us that spending that much money for a .1% survivability increase should be a decision made by the owners, not a code requirement.


do you have a source link for those numbers???


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 20, 2012)

> Why haven't the no sprinkler people stepped up and tried to get the commercial sprinkler requirement removed from the codes???


Commercial buildings required to have sprinklers are usually 12,000 sq ft or more, have a large occupancy load, or people that are not capable of self preservation.

Commercial sprinklers are designed to protect property. RFS are not even though they are constantly being sold that way.

I personally would like the sprinkler requirement in R-1 and R-2 removed in buildings of 2 stories or less if each dwelling/sleeping unit has an egress door that leads directly to an exterior exit access that leads directly to an exit.


----------



## lunatick (Nov 20, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> ok is this a play on words???yes they are required, as in alot of cities and states.
> 
> But once installed, in private residence, what authority does an ahj have to go back and inspect for working detector???  Plus, would you want that law on the book??


If it is commercial property (apartments/hotels) they typically have this right for anual inspections.

But for residences (in part due to numbes and privacy concerns) they wouldn't.

Really, the big factor would be the underwriters pov. Could they refuse to payout a claim due to lack of operational alarms, etc?

Question would be, for live/work units in sfr, make the property commercial enough to allow for occupancy inspection requirements that mfr/comm propoerties currently have?

Otherwise, one could include it with condition on resale of property.

Last, the author doesn't realize the code requirements are gradient in a natures, when comparing apples and oragnes (sfr/mfr).

Code has always place greater requirements where it affects more and more.

No I do not think that is bad in practice.

Yes that does mean tragedies will occur.

But no matter what we do, there is always going to be a point where these things will happen.

While you debate whether adding fire suppression to sfr's, I think it would be better to restrict operation of windows to prevent fall hazards.

But to each their own pov.


----------



## RJJ (Nov 20, 2012)

Smoke VS Sprinklers! The debate starts a new!:inspctr


----------



## FM William Burns (Nov 20, 2012)

> I personally would like the sprinkler requirement in R-1 and R-2 removed in buildings of 2 stories or less if each dwelling/sleeping unit has an egress door that leads directly to an exterior exit access that leads directly to an exit.


MT,

The far right advocates for RFS won't even consider a compromise of similar resolve.........go figure:banghd

*Some people just can't see the forest beyond the trees!*


----------



## RJJ (Nov 20, 2012)

I was once far right! Then I shifted slightly to the right! ops I realizzzed that neither position was ok!


----------



## hlfireinspector (Nov 21, 2012)

RJJ said:
			
		

> Smoke VS Sprinklers! The debate starts a new!:inspctr


HOUSTON: Woman gets 80 years for deadly Texas day care fire | National | Bradenton Herald

What good did smokes do for these babies?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 21, 2012)

> "She was being paid to watch these children. She knew better," Baldassano said. "It's not the stove. It's not the refrigerator. It's not any parents' fault. It's nobody's fault but her own."Read more here: HOUSTON: Woman gets 80 years for deadly Texas day care fire | National | Bradenton Herald
> ​


The building code is not ment to protect people from others incompetence.


----------



## AegisFPE (Nov 21, 2012)

It appears that the news reports are mistakenly referring to smoke alarms as smoke detectors. It is some consolation that the fire department was able to use this story to emphasize specific prevention measures to the community.

As far as mandating sprinklers in all new housing in order to protect daycare centers in existing homes, I fail to see any benefit for the children.

To support tmurray's statistics that residential fire sprinklers in new construction (which would be installed alongside hardwired interconnected smoke alarms) would make less than 1/2 of 1 percent difference in survival statistics can be seen in a 2008 NFPA report which cites a 99.45% chance of surviving a home fire when working smoke alarms are present. In the 2011 NFPA Report that survival rate is up to 99.59% for hardwired smoke alarms (99.99% with hardwired smoke alarms and wet pipe sprinkler protection).


----------



## RJJ (Nov 21, 2012)

hlfire: Didn't do any good. However, I agree with aegisFPE. As stated above I have been on both sides of the coin on this issue. I voted against them in the twin city mess and in Baltimore. I have spent countless hours reviewing all positions. In some AHJ's I inspect and enforce the requirement for Sprinklers. In other AHJ's they are not required under PA UCC. I have a different view than several years back on the need or not for sprinklers. However, as we have seen ICC has not fared well since the mandate to their code books and states have not approved them.


----------



## hlfireinspector (Nov 21, 2012)

statistics can be seen in a 2008 NFPA report which cites a 99.45% chance of surviving a home fire when working smoke alarms are present. In the 2011 NFPA Report that survival rate is up to 99.59% for hardwired smoke alarms (99.99% with hardwired smoke alarms and wet pipe sprinkler protection).

Somke alarms are great but you have to be capable of fleeing from the fire. Smoke alarms are passive protection and sprinklers are active protection. Get on the e-mail list for fire deaths from (non-arson) residental fires. Every day many many deaths of babies and elderly that are unable to respond to smoke alarms. We (the fire service) did not come up in arms over brace walls in residental structures. I can sprinkler a home for less than I can install brace walls. Heck I can sprinkler a home for less than they charge to paint it. IMHO Off soapbox now!!!!


----------



## tmurray (Nov 22, 2012)

cda said:
			
		

> do you have a source link for those numbers???


No, sorry, these are Canadian statistics the .1% survivability was calculated from Canadian communities and was from a engineering industry magazine discussing the mandatory sprinkler requirements in the US and it's cost benefit for Canada. The 3 Million dollar threshold is the number used by the National Research Council in their development of minimum life safety standards for the National Building Code of Canada (if your safety system costs over 3 million dollars per life saved it will never be mandated). The 38 million dollar number is from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation report PDF here. It bears keeping in mind that in Canada the cost of sprinklers in houses is 3$ per square foot (I think the number thrown around in the US is 1.65$?) Given that Canada is more rural than the US sprinklers are likely to cost more because greater proportion of people are supplied using private wells than the US.


----------



## tmurray (Nov 22, 2012)

hlfireinspector said:
			
		

> HOUSTON: Woman gets 80 years for deadly Texas day care fire | National | Bradenton HeraldWhat good did smokes do for these babies?


This wasn't a dwelling it was a daycare.

She left the children unattended.

I'm willing to bet there are laws against leaving children unattended that are under the age of 4 in most developed nations.

The code cannot regulate what stupid people do in a building. It must consider what the occupants will typically do.

I wonder if this woman had been responsible and been there when the fire started if that family would be burying their child right now...


----------



## TJacobs (Nov 24, 2012)

425 ILCS 60/  Smoke Detector Act.

Illinois requires smoke detectors in all residential regardless of age of building.  Requires hard-wired when constructed or altered after 12/31/1987, and hard-wired battery-backup after 01/01/2011.


----------



## hlfireinspector (Nov 24, 2012)

This wasn't a dwelling it was a daycare.

a fire broke out at her home day care

Read more here: HOUSTON: Woman gets 80 years for deadly Texas day care fire | National | Bradenton Herald


----------



## cda (Nov 24, 2012)

It was a person keeping children in a house

Tx normally does not require much more then smoke alarms and fire extinguisher


----------

