I test every 2 weeks, but I am a bit OCD in some areas.
3 Likes
I’ve read in one guideline for tenants in Qld they should be tested once every 12 months.
It does have the moniker of the Qld Govt on the issuer!
2 Likes
I am writing further to reading discussions from 2 years ago about smoke alarms.
There are two types, both of which can be battery or hard-wired:
- Ionisation - the type in most homes, and,
- Photelectric or Optical - the type mandated since May 2004 in commercial buildings.
I would kindly ask that Choice readers check out our updated website which explains why ionisation smoke alarms are so deadly/dangerous.
‘Deadly/Dangerous?’
This claim is made crystal clear with the two short videos (both less than 3 minutes) on our home page and evidenced by the fact that Queensland’s seminal photoelectric-only smoke alarm legislation (1 Jan 2017) specifically excludes any ionisation technology.
Please examine ‘The Alarming Truth’:
www.SmokeAlarmWarning.org
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Adrian Butler
Chairman & Co-Founder
World Fire Safety Foundation
Queensland, Australia
Hello @AdrianButler. As I recall the Choice review from a few years ago did recommend Photoelectric over Ionization smoke detectors. They are better in most situations. For home situations.
Talk of “deadly or dangerous” for the Ionization types is just inflammatory rhetoric.
Hi Gregr
Thank you for your feedback.
I am well aware that using words like “Dangerous” and “Deadly” are inflammatory. But are these words warranted?
However, the other end of the scale waters down the true nature of ionisation alarms such as when people say “any smoke alarm is better than no smoke alarm” or, “an ionisation is good for flaming fires, and a photoelectric is good for smouldering fires.” Both these statements are technically true but this watered down rhetoric prevents people from discovering the truth about the insidious ionisation devices and denies them the right to choose between savings and safety.
That is why I respectfully ask you to check out our website. Doing so will give you insight into why ionisation alarms should be banned and why they are, in accordance with the definitions found in the Macquarie (Australia), Merrimam Webster (USA) and Oxford (UK) dictionaries, both deadly and dangerous.
We took the CSIRO to court over this issue as they hold the scientific test data that proves ionisation alarms are unable to pass the CSIRO scientific testing for visible smoke.
Please take the time to examine the first two videos on our home page (less than 5 minutes) where former NSW Fire Commissioner Greg Mullins states ionisation smoke alarms “should be banned.”
www.SmokeAlarmWarning.org
You deserve to know ‘The Alarming Truth’.
Thank you.
Adrian Butler
Hi Adrian, welcome to the community.
In anticipation the Choice Community topic you referred to is still open for new content. Your post and the recent replies may be moved to the same
There is opportunity to discuss the inconsistencies between states in what they require. Especially the discrepancy in recommended technologies including hardwired and interconnected.
There is no need to encourage me in any one direction. We live in Qld. Our installed alarms are PE, and we have a CO monitor in the kitchen.
2 Likes
Hi @AdrianButler, welcome to the community.
I agree with @mark_m that you post should be moved here to continue existing discussions/thread about photoelectric/optical and ionising smoke detectors.
In relation to this comment, in Australia consumers can purchase either type of smoke detectors and therefore have a choice. Is the issue lack of information about the merits and constraints if either type, especially at the point of sale so consumers can make informed decisions at the time of purchase.
2 Likes
You have quite a collection of opinions saying ionisation alarms are dangerous. It is my understanding that around the world authorities look for the reasons for house fires, especially where there is a fatality. As they have been in operation widely for quite some time and this criticism has been raised before I would think there ought to be quite a body of evidence available showing the frequency that this type of alarm has failed and the consequences. Could you please tell me where to find such evidence?
3 Likes
The Centre for Environmental and Risk Engineering, at the University, Melbourne prepared the report ‘Australian Building Codes Board’s Domestic Smoke Alarm Study: Ionisation versus Photoelectric’ (a pdf document on the NSW Fire Services website) and it is worth reading to get an unbiased information on ionising and photoelectric smoke detectors.
One of the conclusions were:
Consistent with various previous reports, it is found that photoelectric alarms typically respond faster to smouldering fires, while ionisation alarms respond faster to flaming conditions.
This study also provides comments on a Fire & Rescue New South Wales study which appears to have deficiencies in relation to its conclusions on ionising and photoelectric detectors.
The Australian Parliament has has a inquiry in relation to fire deaths and smoke detectors, and provides a summary of different views on detector types in its report (pdf document on the Australian Parliament website).
It is worth reading this report as well as it contains opinions and evidentiary material in relation to the different detector types.
Reading both reports, it appears that if one is overly concerned about the type of detector installed/to be installed in one’s house, that one should consider a dual type detector which has both photoelectric and ionising sensors. This possibly overcomes the limitations of photoelectric and ionising detectors when used in isolation and ensures the merits of each detector type is available, if and when needed in the case of a fire.
I have also temporarily closed this topic as there is sufficient information for consumers to assess the merits of different types of detectors to make their own informed decision.
6 Likes
This topic was automatically opened after 29 days.
Untested in Qld this advice is not in accordance with the state legislation. Summary at end of comment. The requirements specifically require photoelectric activated fire detectors to be installed, and all older ionisation type detectors to be replaced only with a photoelectric type.
A difference of view is not the issue. It is important that readers of the forum receive clear information. If the recommendation or option is different to regulation, it needs that warning or caution. The requirements for all properties in Qld in a simple brochure format with common questions.
https://www.qfes.qld.gov.au/community-safety/smokealarms/Pages/faq.aspx
Note:
Is there is a need to change the legislation in Qld and that of several other states with similar directions? It might be a different topic heading arguing for and against the current legislation. It is very different to suggesting consumers do not adhere to current regulation, without a caution.
It may come to pass the option of a dual type becomes acceptable or not. Note that like most things fire safety and building construction is a state responsibility leaving ample room for 8 different solutions.
It is interesting that Queensland prohibits the installation of ionising sensor smoke detectors. The Queensland Parliamentary Committee which ‘reviewed’ the 2016 amendments acknowledged that the Commonwealth Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee made the following recommendation:
Recommendation 3
3.40 The committee recommends that the National Construction Code is amended to require
the installation of interconnected, and preferably mains powered, photoelectric smoke alarms,
supplemented where appropriate by ionisation smoke alarms, in every residential property
and specify the type of smoke alarm to be used at different locations within each residential
property, taking into account the different smoke detection properties of photoelectric and
ionisation smoke alarms.
It is interesting that Queensland ignored this recommendation, and they will be the only ones to say why it was not adopted. I haven’t checked other states legislation, but is is possible that they have adopted all the Commonwealth Committee recommendations in their entirety.
In adopting interconnected alarms, mains powered and hard wired for new construction or major renovation it has been quite progressive. NSW our most populous state, for example has much simpler requirements.
Perhaps mains powered and interconnected alarming are more important than the type of detector installed?
Objective critique may be required of more than one state?
1 Like
True, but Queensland allows replacement of smoke detectors with like for like…such as battery with battery.
if they are powered by 240-volt they must be replaced with 240-volt smoke detectors, otherwise they can be powered by 10 year non-removable batteries
Dwellings constructed pre 1997 may have battery operated smoke alarms.
Dwellings constructed after 2014 are required to have their smoke alarms interconnected to each other.
For Qld, need to add for new dwellings built or major renovations from 2017. Note the requirement for hardwired.
Ref: https://www.qfes.qld.gov.au/community-safety/smokealarms/Pages/new-properties.aspx
An interesting article regarding smoke detectors.
Interesting only in describing how each type of sensor detects smoke.
There must be something about batteries made or sold in the USA, or at least in South Carolina? The good Assistant Professor at their University is recommending changing batteries in smoke alarms every six months. Not consistent with Australia.
Perhaps the ten year life smoke alarms are still to find the way that far south Stateside? And some jest about Qld being a little behind the times. Just one hour at present.
P.S.
The article does not mention regular testing and cleaning which are recommendations in Australia.
