Currently, ionization-type smoke detectors are banned in three states: Massachusetts, Iowa, and Vermont. However, elsewhere they are the dominant type of smoke detector, due to their low price.Now, what many people are unaware of is that there is a very serious problem with ionization-type smoke detectors: they are very poor at detecting slow smoldering fires. Ionization-type smoke detectors can take 15 to 30 minutes longer to sound than a photoelectric-type smoke detector, and sometimes won't even sound at all. Slow smoldering fires account for more deaths than fast flaming fires anually, most of which occur during the overnight hours.
Here is an in-depth explaination of the problems of ionization-type smoke detectors:
Smoke Alarm Lawsuits | Defective Smoke Alarm Lawyers Mobile AL (
http://www.taylormartino.com/product_liability/smoke_alarms/smoke-alarm-lawsuit.cfm - broken link)
Luckily we installed photoelectric-type detectors in our house in Rio Rancho, and when we move to the Phoenix area, if the new house only has ionization-type smoke detectors, we will replace one of them on each floor with photoelectric-type detectors.
While manufacturers claim that ionization-type smoke detectors are faster at detecting fast flaming fires than photoelectric, studies have shown that the difference in response time is insignificant. However, with slow smoldering fires, the photoelectric-type smoke detectors are much faster at detecting them than ionization-type detectors.
Of course, there also exists dual sensor smoke detectors, which contain both a photoelectric and an ionization sensor, however, I don't think they are worth the price since they would only offer slightly better protection for fast flaming fires than photoelectric-only alarms, and would not make any difference for slow smoldering fires.
So, does anyone here think there should be a ban on ionization-type smoke detectors, considering the loss of lives they have caused due to poor detection of slow smoldering fires?