Re: House fire blamed on smoke detector

["Doug" <not@xxxxxxxx>]

"Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uGWsl.108552$xK6.47886@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> They first required smoke detectors in the hall to adjoining bedrooms.
> Split bedroom plans required a smoke in each hallway. Now they require a
> smoke detector inside each bedroom, Heat Detectors in the laundry room,
> kitchen area, the boiler, the hot water heater, the air handler, the
> attic, the basement, the garage...CO Detectors, NG detectors, Flood
> detectors, fart detectors, This & That detector, only to increase the
> chance ten fold that of one of these devices may be faulty, or what say
> you.
>
> Yet the statistic haven't changed. Homes burn down just as quickly, and
> people still die of smoke inhalation, with or without these devices in
> place. I have no AC powered smokes in my home. In fact, I have Ademco
> wireless smokes & heats, and I also have 9v lithium powered smokes as a
> standby. One set has built in escape lights, and temporal sync sounders.
>
> Jim Rojas
>
>
>
>
>
> Doug wrote:
>> http://www.buffalonews.com/437/story/596807.html
>>
>>
>> Doug

Overall I would say that you are far safer with smoke detectors than without
them, the chances of one of them failing and actually causing a fire is in
my opinion, notwithstanding the link I posted, close to zero. I'd have to
agree that the more smoke detectors you install, the more likely one is to
fail, but then again the more there are the less likelihood there is of all
of them failing.  I certainly don't think AC smokes are inherently
dangerous, anymore than an AC light fixture is inherently dangerous. The
danger as I see it is the cheap smokes typically sold at the big box stores
and installed by builders and homeowners alike, these things seem to alarm
if someone cuts the cheese in the next street, IMO the sheer number of false
activation's cause people to disable them to prevent nuisance alarms.

Doug