Slides 23 and 24

Now what I think should be the Gold Standard study.  Researchers at Texas A&M University, along with support from the University of Colorado and Iowa, did a three year smoke alarm study in the 1990’s.  They were concerned that UL’s testing of smoke alarms, by putting a smoke detector in a wooden box and then by forcing smoke through it, was not as good as open field testing.  Texas A&M’s testing was a fault-tree-analysis model designed by Bell Laboratories for the United States military.  After three years here is what their research concluded:

1. -In a Smoldering fire the ionization detector had a 55.8% failure rate (this means the person died) to the photoelectric detectors 4.06% failure rate.
   

2. -In a Flaming fire, where the ionization supposedly has a few seconds advantage, the ionization had a 19.8% failure rate, to the photoelectric detectors 3.99% failure rate.

<<<  23 of 39  >>>

(c) Copyright July 09

1. 1. •“The development of the risk analysis offered a clear insight into why there continues to be a high residential death rate in spite of an increase in the residences reported to have smoke detectors installed. The current thought process demonstrated by fire officials in the position to make recommendations, has been to just install a smoke detector in the home without consideration as
      to the type of potential fire ignition that most frequently occurs or to the quality
      of the fire detector.”
      

   2. 
      

   3. •“A review of the risk analysis provides a clear example of the probability of a detector failure if there is no consideration as to the risk involved with the use
      of the various types of fire detectors.”

1 of 2 . . .