""""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
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
