The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Do you know your kids could be sleeping under POOR smoke detectors!
From Firehouse.com
THE SEPTEMBER NIGHT that turned Desiree Wylie's days into a marathon of misery started with a full bladder.
It was a half-hour before midnight. She awoke to use the bathroom. She knew something was wrong when she flipped the light switch and nothing happened. In the hallway, she felt a draft. Then, she smelled smoke.
Horror hit hard.
"Jessica! Fire!" she screamed up the stairs, where her 22-year-old daughter, Jessica Torres, slumbered with her sons, 4 and 3.
The ensuing chaos was full of noise: the women's cries of terror and calls for help, the thundering of their feet as they scrambled to escape, the sounds of destruction below as fire devoured the first floor.
But not the shriek of a smoke detector.
Wylie said she had at least seven scattered throughout her three-story home in Coatesville, all with fresh batteries she had put in to prepare for a recent house inspection.
"I didn't hear a single one going off," Wylie said. "All I heard was the kids screaming, us panicking."
Although firefighters universally trumpet the life-saving benefits of smoke detectors, Wylie witnessed - with heartbreaking results - the shortcomings of ionization alarms, the cheapest and most commonly used smoke detectors.
Because ionization detectors are less sensitive to the smoke produced by smoldering fires, they can take a half-hour or more longer than their competitor - photoelectric detectors - to alert residents of brewing danger.
For Wylie, that delay was the difference between life and death.
Within seconds, the smoke grew so thick that she couldn't get to her 11-year-old son, Brian Kelly Westmoreland Jr. It turned so toxic that Torres, who had smashed a third-floor window to escape, couldn't get to her sons, Tyrone and Tyzhier Hill, who had collapsed unconscious out of reach.
All three boys died of smoke-inhalation in the Sept. 21 blaze, which smoldered in a trash can behind the house before spreading. Investigators ruled the fire at Wylie's house accidental.
A crusade against ion detectors
Tragedies like Wylie's infuriate Jay Fleming, a Boston deputy fire chief. He has made it his life's crusade to educate fire and government officials and the public about the potentially deadly deficiencies of ionization, or ion, detectors.
"It's needless, just totally didn't have to happen," Fleming said of the Coatesville boys' deaths.
When it comes to fire protection, consumers have three choices in smoke-detector technology: ion or photoelectric alarms, or a hybrid of the two.
The ion device, which uses a small amount of radioactive material to create an electric current within the unit, sounds when smoke particles interrupt the current.
Photoelectric detectors use optical technology; they go off when smoke particles reflect part of a light beam onto a photo detector.
Priced as low as $7, ion alarms typically cost half as much as their photoelectric counterpart. And although both technologies have been around for decades, photoelectric units until the early 1980s had to be hard-wired, making them less popular than the battery-operated ion alarms.
That affordability and convenience made the ion alarms a best-seller. The National Fire Protection Association figures that 96 percent of American homes have smoke detectors, and Kidde, one of the top manufacturers of both detectors, estimates that 90 percent of those alarms are ions.
But the two technologies react differently to different smoke.
In flaming fires, ion alarms activate faster, by about 30 seconds, because they are more sensitive to the tiny particles such fires emit.
But smoldering fires, the type that happen overnight when people sleep, produce larger particles that set photoelectric alarms off faster - by as much as 30 minutes, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and controlled burns done by Fleming for Hook, a magazine for firefighters.
Ion alarms also sometimes fail to sound in smoldering fires even when smoke has thickened enough to significantly degrade visibility, NIST acknowledged in August 2007 testimony to the Boston City Council.
Further, ion alarms are easily triggered by shower steam and cooking smoke, Fleming found, a drawback that prompts plenty of frustrated folks to yank out - and sometimes forget to reinsert - the batteries.
Because smoke can incapacitate and kill in minutes, Fleming says, such shortcomings are unforgivable.
"Since 1990, the industry's and government's refusal to recognize this problem has resulted in thousands of needless deaths," Fleming said.
Fleming believes the best fire protection is a photoelectric detector, and says fire-safety advocates should educate the public about its superiority. He wants manufacturers to put warning labels on the packaging of ion alarms, alerting buyers to their delay in smoldering fires.
And fire investigators should start keeping track of what kinds of detectors, if any, were present in burned homes or businesses to develop data that would demonstrate which technology is better, he said.
Hook took up Fleming's cause in an exhaustive report last July, and the International Association of Fire Fighters joined their efforts shortly afterward.
"Don't just change your batteries; change your smoke detector too," IAFF officials urged in an October announcement, in which they called for federal, state and local leaders to change building codes to require photoelectrics.
THE SEPTEMBER NIGHT that turned Desiree Wylie's days into a marathon of misery started with a full bladder.
It was a half-hour before midnight. She awoke to use the bathroom. She knew something was wrong when she flipped the light switch and nothing happened. In the hallway, she felt a draft. Then, she smelled smoke.
Horror hit hard.
"Jessica! Fire!" she screamed up the stairs, where her 22-year-old daughter, Jessica Torres, slumbered with her sons, 4 and 3.
The ensuing chaos was full of noise: the women's cries of terror and calls for help, the thundering of their feet as they scrambled to escape, the sounds of destruction below as fire devoured the first floor.
But not the shriek of a smoke detector.
Wylie said she had at least seven scattered throughout her three-story home in Coatesville, all with fresh batteries she had put in to prepare for a recent house inspection.
"I didn't hear a single one going off," Wylie said. "All I heard was the kids screaming, us panicking."
Although firefighters universally trumpet the life-saving benefits of smoke detectors, Wylie witnessed - with heartbreaking results - the shortcomings of ionization alarms, the cheapest and most commonly used smoke detectors.
Because ionization detectors are less sensitive to the smoke produced by smoldering fires, they can take a half-hour or more longer than their competitor - photoelectric detectors - to alert residents of brewing danger.
For Wylie, that delay was the difference between life and death.
Within seconds, the smoke grew so thick that she couldn't get to her 11-year-old son, Brian Kelly Westmoreland Jr. It turned so toxic that Torres, who had smashed a third-floor window to escape, couldn't get to her sons, Tyrone and Tyzhier Hill, who had collapsed unconscious out of reach.
All three boys died of smoke-inhalation in the Sept. 21 blaze, which smoldered in a trash can behind the house before spreading. Investigators ruled the fire at Wylie's house accidental.
A crusade against ion detectors
Tragedies like Wylie's infuriate Jay Fleming, a Boston deputy fire chief. He has made it his life's crusade to educate fire and government officials and the public about the potentially deadly deficiencies of ionization, or ion, detectors.
"It's needless, just totally didn't have to happen," Fleming said of the Coatesville boys' deaths.
When it comes to fire protection, consumers have three choices in smoke-detector technology: ion or photoelectric alarms, or a hybrid of the two.
The ion device, which uses a small amount of radioactive material to create an electric current within the unit, sounds when smoke particles interrupt the current.
Photoelectric detectors use optical technology; they go off when smoke particles reflect part of a light beam onto a photo detector.
Priced as low as $7, ion alarms typically cost half as much as their photoelectric counterpart. And although both technologies have been around for decades, photoelectric units until the early 1980s had to be hard-wired, making them less popular than the battery-operated ion alarms.
That affordability and convenience made the ion alarms a best-seller. The National Fire Protection Association figures that 96 percent of American homes have smoke detectors, and Kidde, one of the top manufacturers of both detectors, estimates that 90 percent of those alarms are ions.
But the two technologies react differently to different smoke.
In flaming fires, ion alarms activate faster, by about 30 seconds, because they are more sensitive to the tiny particles such fires emit.
But smoldering fires, the type that happen overnight when people sleep, produce larger particles that set photoelectric alarms off faster - by as much as 30 minutes, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and controlled burns done by Fleming for Hook, a magazine for firefighters.
Ion alarms also sometimes fail to sound in smoldering fires even when smoke has thickened enough to significantly degrade visibility, NIST acknowledged in August 2007 testimony to the Boston City Council.
Further, ion alarms are easily triggered by shower steam and cooking smoke, Fleming found, a drawback that prompts plenty of frustrated folks to yank out - and sometimes forget to reinsert - the batteries.
Because smoke can incapacitate and kill in minutes, Fleming says, such shortcomings are unforgivable.
"Since 1990, the industry's and government's refusal to recognize this problem has resulted in thousands of needless deaths," Fleming said.
Fleming believes the best fire protection is a photoelectric detector, and says fire-safety advocates should educate the public about its superiority. He wants manufacturers to put warning labels on the packaging of ion alarms, alerting buyers to their delay in smoldering fires.
And fire investigators should start keeping track of what kinds of detectors, if any, were present in burned homes or businesses to develop data that would demonstrate which technology is better, he said.
Hook took up Fleming's cause in an exhaustive report last July, and the International Association of Fire Fighters joined their efforts shortly afterward.
"Don't just change your batteries; change your smoke detector too," IAFF officials urged in an October announcement, in which they called for federal, state and local leaders to change building codes to require photoelectrics.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by BillySFCVFD on
-
Thanks for the info FETC. I'm installing pairs of each in my home now. Wonder if all-in-ones are made? TCSS
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
This topic has come up before, with a scare campaign being mounted here. Yes, photo-electric can detect smouldering fires before ionisation detectors. And ionisation detectors will work quicker for fires that have only a short smouldering phase - as can be the case with fires that start from an existing flame source, or from an electrical short-circuit. In the case cited, if there was that much smoke, if the person could smell the smoke, then properly functioning ionisation alarms would be sounding. Both types have their advantages. The hybrid is probably the sort to install. At the time of that scare campaign, I was employed by one of our fire services, we were given information about this subject and it was our task to attempt to counter the campaign. I also did my own research to back up the supplied data.
To come out and blame one type for causing deaths, as the scare campaign did here four years ago, is wrong. (I'm not accusing you of doing that FETC, you are simply providing someone elses side of the debate)
I have not heard of a single case here where the use of ionisation smoke alarms has caused casualties. That is not to say that it hasn't happened, but that I haven't heard anything. However, if it was known to have happened, I feel safe in saying that our laws requiring the fitting of smoke alarms would hace been changed to specify which type. My State was one of the first places in the world to require the fitting of smoke alarms in all dwelings, not just new ones. Our government would have no qualms in changing that law.
Having said all that, I will add that ionisation alarms have a 'use by' date, the detection part of the system will only last for about ten years and then although the battery test will still work it's just that, a battery test - the alarms must be replaced. Do photo-electric alarms have a use-by date? I don't know.
Another point about people 'not hearing' smoke alarms? I've heard people stating that "the smoke alarm didn't work" - when the recording of the emergency call clearly had the smoke alarm sounding in the background. It seems that some people don't realise what it was that actually awakened them, they've put it down to the smell of smoke waking them; our sense of smell doesn't work when we are asleep which is why we need the audible alarms.
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
I am not starting a scare campaign but it is not a new issue either. Yet we here of another report of detectors not sounding in 2008 and children die.
Code says we need to have them. It doesn't address which ones are needed. Maybe it is time to re-address the code. Maybe we need a mix or the newer hybrid type.
People have been concerned with the current testing process...
4 part video series to include tests:
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=6552929&nav=menu188_7_1
Texas AM Engineering Test:
http://engineeringworks.tamu.edu/?p=197
-
-
Thanks again FETC and thanks TonyP.
The links FETC posted mentioned installing both types or combo/dual models. For so little money to save lives I will err to the side of caution regardless of both points of view. TCSS
-
Permalink Reply by Doug on
-
Great post, and there's a few good videos out there too that demonstrate the differences between the two. It is now being recommended to have both types of detectors throughout your residence.
-
Permalink Reply by Jay Fleming on
-
I suspect that the smoke alarms in this fire were ionization. Since this was an electrical fire it probably produced smoldering smoke.
Jay Fleming
smolderd for a Fire chief says Eargle followed protocol
• Posted by Hayward Dewey Pack JR on September 29, 2007 at 6:08pm
• Add as Friend View Hayward Dewey Pack JR's blog
Smoke alarms didn’t sound
Fire chief says Eargle followed protocol
By RANDY BURNS Item Staff Writer
rburns@theitem.com
BISHOPVILLE – Smoke detectors in the bedroom and dayroom areas of Fire Station No. 1 on East Church Street did not function during Tuesday night’s fire that began in the dayroom, according to fire officials.
Fire Engineer Brian Eargle was asleep in the station’s bedroom when the fire started about 11:30 p.m. Eargle said he woke up coughing. He escaped the fire, which caused an estimated $30,000 in damages, with no injuries.
Eargle said he believed it was fortunate the fire occurred before he was in a “deep sleep.”
Officials said the fire alarms did not do their job.
“They are supposed to be working in both rooms,” said Lee County Fire Chief Mike Bedenbaugh. “I had assumed they were both working. We’re going with AC and a battery pack. I’m going to make sure that doesn’t happen again.”
Bedenbaugh praised Eargle for his response to the fire.
“I have no criticisms at all,” he said. “I think Brian made good decisions.”
After waking up, Eargle said he hit the floor immediately and stayed low, crawling toward the outside of the building after discovering the fire was coming from the dayroom.
He was able to drive two fire vehicles out of the building and began pouring water into the dayroom before additional firefighters arrived on the scene.
Bedenbaugh said he thinks Eargle acted properly when he entered the building alone to retrieve the fire vehicles and to begin pouring water on the fire.
Standard firefighting procedures require a minimum of two firefighters inside a burning building, officials said.
“After exiting the building, I did not re-enter a room where there was smoke or fire,” Eargle said. “There was no smoke where the fire trucks were located. It was safe in there. And I did not go back into the dayroom. I stood outside the doorway and poured water on the fire.”
Eargle said he was only 3 to 4 feet from the outside of the building when he was using the fire hose.
When firefighters arrived, they entered the room with the required structural firefighting clothing and federally mandated equipment.
Bedenbaugh said Eargle did not violate regulations; however, he said he would like to see two firefighters assigned to the fire station overnight. Funding issues in the past have prevented the department from assigning two firefighters to overnight duty, he said.
“I will be working with County Council on this,” he said. “In fact, we’ve been talking about it. They know we would like a second person on duty overnight.”
According to the State Law Enforcement Division, the investigation of the fire is continuing. Bedenbaugh said he understands investigators believe the fire appears to be “electrical in nature.”
Contact Staff Writer Randy Burns at rburns@theitem.com or (803) 491-4533.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
