• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

one man's toughts

Why?

My issues with the individual’s claims are relative to smoke detection technology and the stance on protection schemes. The author eccentrically rants about ineffective ionization technology as specific reasons for why civilians perish while promoting heat detection as a savior.

Most in the fire service know or now realize that using a combination scheme in detection is what is favorable since both serve their purpose and one never knows what type of fire they will have. The greatest danger to a civilian is when they are sleeping and not intimate with the fire event.

Let’s take the following scenario....... There is a fire developing in the kitchen or on a table top when a cigarette falls out of an ashtray. This fire is a rapid developer and produces far greater levels of carbon monoxide and at quicker limits than a smoldering fire and therefore more dangerous to one’s ability to escape. To rant about banning the detection technology for just using photoelectric and or mechanical heat detection is well, let’s just say................. a crock of crap.

The facts and supporting testing data is available throughout other related postings in this and other media about smoke detection technology. They both work and based on the actual time factors for opposite type fire signatures; if faced with having to make a choice of only having one detector, I would chose the ionization due to the example above. I support and recommend using a combination approach in detection and always have since again, one never knows what type fire may be encountered at 0 dark thirty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No problem Mark, it's just people like this while pationate, just add to making my job harder and it ticks me off sometimes. Besides, Cda is pushing buttons and he knows what I like :)
 
MT,



Yes, I read it about eleven years ago when I first began debating the pro’s and con’s of smoke detection technology amongst fire service colleagues mainly due to contradictions with assigned task group reports and aftermath waves of panic that the fire service was promoting a false sense of security to civilians.



Basically, my analysis of the author’s position is that the argument or as stated by the author; the “false security blanket” the fire service took part in was for the removal of heat detectors as a previously accepted early warning device for the acceptance of a smoke detector. Once photoelectric technology became available the campaign or battle ground shifted to remove ionization technology entirely from the dwelling and install photos. More recently, that photoelectric are the better of the two technologies. This scare campaign has thus produced successful mandates for the removal of ionization type detectors in various municipalities and in my opinion that’s a shame.



While the author is a proactive thinking individual regarding RFS, it is my opinion that anyone supporting the banishment of one detector technology for the other based on an aquarium test or rudiment testing where visibility at upper room levels is still at survivable levels is the one providing a false sense of security. Using a combination smoke detection scheme based on full scale testing conducted and documented is again, in my opinion the best method of protecting civilians regarding the detection of smoke and while not getting back into another discussion on RFS.
 
Been in the business for 34 years... Never heard of the guy.

But I have heard rantings before about how some fire detection and suppression systems are not the perfect cure. But then how would any system be the perfect cure when human beings are involved.

It is nice to know that HE invented the perfect system. I like technical reports that have the authors picture displayed largely on the cover. That way when I throw darts at the science I have a good target. We should vote to eliminate the NIST Fire and Research Lab and just ask HIM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He is right about one thing...nobody had (has) the stones to make people retrofit anything. The fire service picked the lowest common denominator to get something installed as opposed to the "perfect" solution which would not. They were probably thinking they would be able to save more lives that way than the alternative.

It's funny. I NEVER get a call in the office regarding how someone can exceed the code.
 
The heat detection argument for most fast fires that are the most immediately dangerous is the argument for residential sprinklers that are fast response heat detectors that do something about the fire.
 
I don't want to agree with a crazy guy, but he raises an interesting point. It's a little tough to pick out, and his arguments aren't the clearest I've seen, but he seems to be advocating (or at least complaining) for a sprinkler system that is more life-safety driven, rather than for property protection. Why is it that for commercial buildings, the minimum sprinkler system is still primarily focused on property protection? Is it just that having too many differing levels of protection is too confusing down the road? It seems that allowing retrofits to meet a somewhat lower requirement would still provide some protection, but would also allow code officials and politicians to require sprinklers in older buildings without too much resistance from property owners. Or even for new office buildings, I understand that insurance companies, and many building owners, would demand property protection, but why not have the code specify a minimum of a life-safety system?
 
But what part of NFPA or the fire code allows for a life safety system in an office? Commercial structures are all (at least above a certain size) required to have full NFPA 13 protection, which is a life safety system, but goes beyond to property protection as well. You have 13D and 13R for single-famliy, and smaller residential buildngs, but there is no standard for installing sprinklers solely for life safety in a commercial structure. Historically, there has been a sq. ft. above which a commercial structure required sprinklers, but you jump right into NFPA 13 and its property protection, and below that cutoff has nothing. Why has there never been a life-safety focused system in a commercial structure up to a certain size, then NFPA 13 above that? Then you wouldn't have all the little 3,000 sq. ft. buildings without any sprinklers, while the neighboring 3,500 sq. ft. building has full sprinklers, for example.
 
The cigarette industry has taken notice.. 30 seconds with no puff, they go out. 0 dark thirty it's probably a residential fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top