Jump to content

Talk:Smoke detector: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→EN54 European standards: Add notes on EN14604 (for domestic smoke alarms)
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Smoke detector/Archive 1) (bot
Line 13: Line 13:
| maxarchivesize = 70K
| maxarchivesize = 70K
}}
}}

== POV of Performance differences section ==

Ionization and photoelectric detectors each have their own merits, so why is the [[Smoke detector#Performance differences|Performance differences]] section so anti-ionization?! Even the comparison table in that section shows that ionization detectors are more sensitive to lower obscuration values, on average (yeah, okay, so there's one photoelectric model than can supposedly 0.2%/foot, but that's clearly an outlier if you follow the reference). Furthermore, photoelectric detectors obviously stand no chance of ever detecting invisible smoke particles, which obviously won't obscure anything. If ionization detectors are so "deadly", why are they still on the market and legal in most places? Why are there combination detectors that offer both ionization and photoelectric technologies if photoelectric can do everything that ionization can do—just better? I don't buy it. We should probably find the other side of the argument and [[WP:NPOV|represent it]] here. –&nbsp;<kbd>[[User:voidxor|<span style="color: #00F">void</span>]][[User talk:voidxor|<span style="color: #000">xor</span>]]</kbd> 21:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

: i think that section is POV on another level, too: what performance? in F.Rep.Germ. i cannot see any 40% drop in smoke/fire/flame deaths (ICD-10 X0...), although the legislative ordered a lot of those photoelectric devices... furthermore smoke/fire/flame per (official) inhabitant seems to be more often in the US than in F.Rep.Germ., although F.Rep.Germ. does not have smoke detectors for decades... a newspaper said, that there is no proof for the usefulness of a smoke detector... but of course i do as the gov orders and check the functionality weekly by pressing the test-functionality-button (my computer has an alarm for that)... :) --[[User:Homer Landskirty|Homer Landskirty]] ([[User talk:Homer Landskirty|talk]]) 07:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

:: Should we maybe create a Legislation section and split the Performance differences section in half? That would at least take the biased chronological litany of local laws being passed, and move it away from the objective discussion of obscuration and the like. –&nbsp;<kbd>[[User:voidxor|<span style="color: #00F">void</span>]][[User talk:voidxor|<span style="color: #000">xor</span>]]</kbd> 22:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

::: sounds like pretty good idea... the local legislation told me, that their decision is based on "belief" and not on scientific studies... --[[User:Homer Landskirty|Homer Landskirty]] ([[User talk:Homer Landskirty|talk]]) 06:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

:::: The question is asked above, "If ionization detectors are so "deadly", why are they still on the market and legal in most places?" The answer is because the manufacturers fight to keep the truth about them from the public evidenced by the Confidentiality Order placed on campaigners after ionization smoke alarm manufacturer Kidde (owned by UTC) failed to disclose the level of smoke their ionization alarm activated at under controlled scientific tests conducted by the Australian government scientific organization, the CSIRO. This was despite repeated requests by an Australian member of parliament:
::::* Confidentiality Order: www.SmokeAlarmWarning.org/ba.html
::::* Request for disclosure of smoke obscuration by Australian member of parliament: www.SmokeAlarmWarning.org/csiro.html
::::* 60 Minutes Australia's ionization smoke alarm exposé, 'The Alarming Truth' (Oct 2014): http://www.9jumpin.com.au/show/60minutes/stories/2014/october/the-alarming-truth/
:::: <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2607:FCC8:8600:2600:29C7:DF81:FDAE:23D3|2607:FCC8:8600:2600:29C7:DF81:FDAE:23D3]] ([[User talk:2607:FCC8:8600:2600:29C7:DF81:FDAE:23D3|talk]]) 22:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)</small>

::::: With all due respect, I worry your [[conspiracy theory]] might increase this article's bias toward photoelectric detectors, rather than helping to ensure [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality]]. I'll go ahead and split the section though, as [[User:Homer|Homer]] and I'd discussed. –&nbsp;<kbd>[[User:voidxor|<span style="color: #00F">void</span>]][[User talk:voidxor|<span style="color: #000">xor</span>]]</kbd> 19:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on [[Smoke detector]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=728343124 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120416013553/http://www.systemsensor.com:80/lifesafety/2011/05/sophisticated-strategic-fire-and-life-safety-in-mission-critical-applications/ to http://www.systemsensor.com/lifesafety/2011/05/sophisticated-strategic-fire-and-life-safety-in-mission-critical-applications/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 19:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


== I'm impressed ==
== I'm impressed ==

Revision as of 01:21, 9 July 2021

I'm impressed

When I checked this page's history I was sure the recent Nathan for You episode would have resulted in a flood of vandalism to this article, referring to the smoke detector (more specifically the blues smoke detector) as a musical instrument. But nope, none at all. I don't know how we managed that, but good job, I guess. Even though I don't see how it would have been anything but luck. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 17:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cause and effect...

since 2007 it looks more red than yellow in F.Rep.Germ...
since 2007 the smoke poisoning increases in F.Rep.Germ...
since 2007 the number of final falls increases in F.Rep.Germ...

Hi! R there any scientific studies, that show the effect of a smoke detector? In germany it seems to be a mostly paradox effect, since they have legislation (appr. 2007) that enforces a smoke detector in escape paths and bedrooms... Thx. Bye. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

  • Is it normal, that final smoke intoxication gets more frequent, when u introduce smoke detectors?
  • I mean: did that happen in the US/UK/Sweden, too?

Thx. Bye. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

strangely the X0 and T58 rate seems to be correlated, but then T58 rises independently since 2009... as if it is decoupled now... does someone here know, if it is still X0, when the patient is treated in an ICU for some days? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

  • The final falls increased, too...

Thx. Bye. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

official statement

The government of Baden-Würtemberg has not done and is not planning to perform an evaluation: see [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.7.195.200 (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the German Medical Association does not know anything about it, too... https://fragdenstaat.de/anfrage/finale-sturze/ --Homer Landskirty (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stiftung Warentest recommends (2019) only detectors with long life (10 year) battery. As rationale is given: "Da die Batterien häufig gewechselt werden müssen, ist die Ersparnis klein. Sie steht in keinem Verhältnis zum Aufwand fürs Wechseln der 9-Volt-Batterien sowie zum Unfall­risiko beim Leiterklettern." [2] My translation: Since the battery needs to be changed frequently, the saving is small. It does not compensate the effort for changing the battery and the risk of an accident when climbing a ladder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.176.255 (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
so they admit, that the smoke detectors have a paradox effect? but they still want those horrible inspections in my bedroom every year? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

frequency of certain causes of death

Hi! I think the article should describe in more detail, what the effects of a smoke detector are. Because: It looks like there were never so many final falls and terminal smoke intoxications as now (after they all have a smoke detector in their bedroom in F.Rep.Germany...)... Does anybody know some scientific studies? Thx. Bye.


EN14604 (for domestic smoke alarms)

Given that, certainly in Europe, this tends to be a standard generally cited at domestic point of sale, I think this needs some expansion. I have added a brief paragraph. Do we have a fire officer amongst us, perhaps, who can make some input here?

AlexBwineglass (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smoke_detector&oldid=1032687562"