1. #1
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default Fire Code Corruption Responsible for 10,000 Child Deaths

    Saw this today and thought there might be some interesting debate in it! Where's George when you need him!

    THE LIES THAT KILLED TEN THOUSAND CHILDREN

    THE GREAT BULK OF THE FIRE DEATHS AND INJURIES ARE DUE TO CALCULATED, PLANNED, DELIBERATE CRIMINAL OPERATIONS WITHIN THE FIRE CODE SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES.

    YES, FIRE CODE CORRUPTION IS THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE OF NEARLY ALL FIRE DEATHS TODAY.
    It all began during the early 1960s when I was named chairman of four different fire detection codes of the National Fire Protection Association. The NFPA creates nearly all of the fire codes that are enforced by your local fire department. When I assumed responsibility for the fire detection codes I realized that homes (where 95 percent of all fire deaths involving building fires occur) were totally devoid of fire warning equipment. So, I immediately initiated the writing of a fire detection code for dwellings. With the best and most knowledgeable people in the field, we had a new code up for adoption at the 1966 NFPA National Convention........MORE

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    Jonnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    Saw this today and thought there might be some interesting debate in it! Where's George when you need him!



    It all began during the early 1960s when I was named chairman of four different fire detection codes of the National Fire Protection Association. The NFPA creates nearly all of the fire codes that are enforced by your local fire department. When I assumed responsibility for the fire detection codes I realized that homes (where 95 percent of all fire deaths involving building fires occur) were totally devoid of fire warning equipment. So, I immediately initiated the writing of a fire detection code for dwellings. With the best and most knowledgeable people in the field, we had a new code up for adoption at the 1966 NFPA National Convention........MORE


    You saw this? Where did you see this? Just someone writing something, doesn't mean that it is the truth or correct.

    I read this guys stuff in that link. He probably has an axe to grind.

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    Jonnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,256

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    Saw this today and thought there might be some interesting debate in it! Where's George when you need him!



    It all began during the early 1960s when I was named chairman of four different fire detection codes of the National Fire Protection Association. The NFPA creates nearly all of the fire codes that are enforced by your local fire department. When I assumed responsibility for the fire detection codes I realized that homes (where 95 percent of all fire deaths involving building fires occur) were totally devoid of fire warning equipment. So, I immediately initiated the writing of a fire detection code for dwellings. With the best and most knowledgeable people in the field, we had a new code up for adoption at the 1966 NFPA National Convention........MORE


    You saw this? Where did you see this? Just someone writing something, doesn't mean that it is the truth or correct.

    I read this guys stuff in that link. He probably has an axe to grind.

    BTW Who is this George you are talking about???

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber
    dmleblanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Not the end of the earth but I can see it from here...
    Posts
    2,318

    Default

    I read this guys stuff in that link. He probably has an axe to grind
    ...or something to sell....
    Chief Dwayne LeBlanc
    Paincourtville Volunteer Fire Department
    Paincourtville, LA

    "I have a dream. It's not a big dream, it's just a little dream. My dream — and I hope you don't find this too crazy — is that I would like the people of this community to feel that if, God forbid, there were a fire, calling the fire department would actually be a wise thing to do. You can't have people, if their houses are burning down, saying, 'Whatever you do, don't call the fire department!' That would be bad."
    — C.D. Bales, "Roxanne"

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    225

    Default

    All the "proof" he provides is that in 1980 there wasn't a drastic reduction in fires. I can guarantee you that at least in Baltimore, we didn't start seeing massive retrofit of smoke detectors in existing apartment buildings. By the mid 80's we were seeing a marked decrease in fatalities and even serious structure loss in residences that can almost be directly attributed to more timely response (both smoke detectors and increase in the fire department level of service, but in my same anecdotal manner, more likely the former).

    The article seems a bit crocked.

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ullrichk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Deleted by the forum gremlins
    Posts
    1,663

    Default

    Is he affiliated with the company that sells wind-up heat detectors? His name and M.O. seem familiar.
    ullrichk
    a.k.a.
    perfesser

    a ship in a harbor is safe. . . but that's not what ships are for

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    Saw this today and thought there might be some interesting debate in it! Where's George when you need him!



    It all began during the early 1960s when I was named chairman of four different fire detection codes of the National Fire Protection Association. The NFPA creates nearly all of the fire codes that are enforced by your local fire department. When I assumed responsibility for the fire detection codes I realized that homes (where 95 percent of all fire deaths involving building fires occur) were totally devoid of fire warning equipment. So, I immediately initiated the writing of a fire detection code for dwellings. With the best and most knowledgeable people in the field, we had a new code up for adoption at the 1966 NFPA National Convention........MORE
    Uh-oh. You've posted something that questions the all mighty nfpa. Watch out. Many here will not be happy with you.
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    249

    Default

    Guys, if you read the article you already know the bulk of the article in the fact of the fallable ionizing smoke detectors. There failure rates are well documented. Ullrich, you ought to have seen the report on Channel 5 in Nashville it refers to, I remember it.

    I replaced the detectors in our home to both technologies at a cost of @ $30.00 each vs $7-$8.
    Last edited by Lieutenant387; 02-27-2008 at 08:31 AM.
    The evidence of God's presence far outweighs the
    proof of His absence.

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    It certainly seems worth talking about and possibly calling for true third party testing. If it's true all parties involved have too much to lose to be impartial. I love this line:

    "The public believes that UL and NFPA are humanitarian operations saving us from the fire peril. Actually, they are businesses selling services and they need money to survive. The businesses that profit from the fire problem deliver the necessary funding to the NFPA and UL."

    One need not look much further than the committee list for any standard to find the "business" end of the code. Hell the FD reps are trying to fit being committee members in while doing their normal jobs, while the company people are paid to be committee members as their job, wonder who's more effective?

  10. #10
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Mr Patton may have some credibility according to his high-profile career path but this (presumably) self published press release fails to offer any citations or exact references to the the quotes he uses and as said earlier, offers nothing convincing in terms of proof.

    I have looked briefly into detailed UK experience over fifteen years covering the reliability of ionization detectors, in comparison to optical alternatives in residential fires, and statistically noted no real differences.

    I hate to close the door on someone who appears to so passionate about a cause. I would hope he can present something more convincing to strengthen his case.

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ullrichk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Deleted by the forum gremlins
    Posts
    1,663

    Default

    Master Guard - that's the name of the company I couldn't remember. Known for high-pressure in-home sales of wind-up heat detectors. I wonder if there's an undisclosed affiliation.

    I know for a fact that the debate over ionization detectors has been going on for years. In light of current research and personal experience, I'm convinced that something is amiss in the smoke alarm business. Perhaps it's as simple as the test standard not being realistic enough - much like the standard tests for fire rated assemblies. (Just 'cause it says it's a 1 hr wall doesn't mean it will hold up for 1 hr.) I don't buy the conspiracy theory though, and I'm afraid that by yelling that the sky is falling, an important message will be ignored.
    ullrichk
    a.k.a.
    perfesser

    a ship in a harbor is safe. . . but that's not what ships are for

  12. #12
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    I've been following this issue .... even spoken several times with Mr Patton. I have also heard interesting 'bits' of personal information from firefighting colleagues in several countries that seem to support these claims but are not founded on extensive research.

    NOW THIS STUFF

    Does anyone here have any experience or knowledge in this issue?

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    I've been following this issue .... even spoken several times with Mr Patton. I have also heard interesting 'bits' of personal information from firefighting colleagues in several countries that seem to support these claims but are not founded on extensive research.

    NOW THIS STUFF

    Does anyone here have any experience or knowledge in this issue?
    I have knowledge that there is research going on in the scientific community regarding this issue. When there are facts based on evidence, I am certain that the appropriate action will be taken.

    I also have knowledge that two guys writing something means no more than the people who claim that the moon landing never took place and was filmed in a studio or that the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations were part of the same conspiracy. All are based on fiction.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  14. #14
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    I have knowledge that there is research going on in the scientific community regarding this issue. When there are facts based on evidence, I am certain that the appropriate action will be taken.

    I also have knowledge that two guys writing something means no more than the people who claim that the moon landing never took place and was filmed in a studio or that the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations were part of the same conspiracy. All are based on fiction.
    One wonders who, or what, prompted such research George?

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    One wonders who, or what, prompted such research George?
    One doesn't wonder at all. There very well may be something to this. But to jump at something that could affect potentially millions of people without appropriate research is worse than doing nothing. When the appropriate research is complete, if there is a validated problem, then deal with it with an equally appropriate code provision. Until then, unfoitunately, the prudent thing is to wait.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  16. #16
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    One doesn't wonder at all. There very well may be something to this. But to jump at something that could affect potentially millions of people without appropriate research is worse than doing nothing. When the appropriate research is complete, if there is a validated problem, then deal with it with an equally appropriate code provision. Until then, unfoitunately, the prudent thing is to wait.
    George I couldn't agree more. But is it true that Massachusetts fire and building codes are being/have been amended to eliminate ionization smoke alarms?

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    George I couldn't agree more. But is it true that Massachusetts fire and building codes are being/have been amended to eliminate ionization smoke alarms?
    I don't have the slightest idea. IF they are, and they have some scientific evidence, I hope they share it.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  18. #18
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Well according to the Baltimore Sun they are ... I just searched this. Also, there are 2007 statements from NIST that appear to support these gentlemen's statements that ionization detectors are generally slow to alert occupants in smoldering fires.

    The gentleman in question (linked above) began his quest following the loss of five lives in a Boston fire in 1990. This was a fire I attended on the first alarm and can attest to the belief that the occupants had reportedly removed their smoke alarm battery due to repeated cooking false alarms ... which NIST agree the ionization are somewhat more prone to.

    It appears that a lot of the research is already out there. Who else is researching this?

  19. #19
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    Well according to the Baltimore Sun they are ... I just searched this. Also, there are 2007 statements from NIST that appear to support these gentlemen's statements that ionization detectors are generally slow to alert occupants in smoldering fires.

    The gentleman in question (linked above) began his quest following the loss of five lives in a Boston fire in 1990. This was a fire I attended on the first alarm and can attest to the belief that the occupants had reportedly removed their smoke alarm battery due to repeated cooking false alarms ... which NIST agree the ionization are somewhat more prone to.

    It appears that a lot of the research is already out there. Who else is researching this?
    The news article took literary license with the NIST study. You took tremendous literary license with the article.

    NIST is performing continual research in this area. Their latest study, dated 2007, is entitled, "Performance of Home Smoke Alarms Analysis of the Response of Several Available Technologies in Residential Fire Settings".

    http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire07/PDF/f07063.pdf

    The conclusions reached in the study speak volumes. They are...

    1. The data developed in this study include measurement of temperature and smoke obscuration in addition to gas concentrations for a range of fire scenarios and residences. Measurement of the response of smoke alarms, CO alarms, heat alarms, and tell-tale sprinklers are also included. These data could be of significant value in developing appropriate algorithms for alarms that may include one or more sensor types.
    2. Smoke alarms of either the ionization type or the photoelectric type consistently provided time for occupants to escape from most residential fires.
    a In many cases, available escape time would be sufficient only if households
    follow the advice of fire safety educators, including sleeping with doors closed
    while using interconnected smoke alarms to provide audible alarm in each
    bedroom, and pre-planning and practicing escape so as to reduce pre-movement and movement times.
    b. Smoke alarms may not provide protection for people directly exposed to the
    initial fire development (so-called "intimate with ignition").
    c. Consistent with prior findings, ionization type alarms provided somewhat better response to flaming fires than photoelectric alarms, and photoelectric alarms provided (often) considerably faster response to smoldering fires than ionization type alarms.
    d. Smoke alarms of either type installed on every level generally provided positive escape times for different fire types and locations. Adding smoke alarms in bedrooms increased the escape time provided, especially for smoldering fires. It is important to note that the available safe egress times may overlap with the range of estimates of necessary egress time for the residences studied. Some of this is due to conservative tenability criteria based on incapacitation of the most vulnerable occupants that was used for the current study.
    e. Escape times in this study were systematically shorter than those found in a similar study conducted in the 1970's. This is related to some combination of
    different criteria for time to untenable conditions, improved understanding of the speed and range of threats to tenability, and faster fire development times for today's products that provide the main fuel sources for fires, such as upholstered furniture and mattresses. It is important to note that while both the 1975 study and the current study attempted to use a representative sample of available and important furnishings, each study included only a small fraction of those available in the marketplace. Still, this study is consistent with other recent studies of furniture and mattresses even though there may be significant differences in the burning behavior between items of furniture.
    f. A mechanically aspirated (system-type) photoelectric smoke detector included in the study consistently responded after the other photoelectric smoke alarms, even for smoldering fires where convective flow rates are low and smoke entry might be an issue. Since only one such alarm was included in the study, more general conclusions cannot be drawn.
    g. Residential sprinklers activated well after the smoke alarms and after the heat alarms in all of the scenarios. While these sprinklers have an outstanding record of saving lives and property, the later activation time implies that residential sprinkler installations should always include smoke alarms (as currently required in NFPA 13D and 13R) to provide greater escape times for those capable of escaping.
    4. Experiments conducted with common nuisance sources produced data that should be useful in the development of new performance requirements for conditions that should not activate smoke alarms. Since the data includes analog signal levels and duration for each of the sensor types they should be useful in evaluating a range of approaches to nuisance alarm reduction from reducing alarm threshold for a specified time (“hush” feature) to decision algorithms and multi-sensor arrays.


    Somebody show me where there is anything in this study that would back up the ridiculous claim that these detectors are killing 10,000 children.
    Last edited by GeorgeWendtCFI; 04-13-2008 at 05:00 PM.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  20. #20
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Well literary license or not .... I find this part of the NIST conclusions of great relevance -

    However, ionization detectors have been shown to sometimes fail to alarm in a smoldering fire even when visibility in the room is significantly degraded by smoke. Most photoelectric detectors alarm substantially sooner in these situations. In the NIST experiments the photoelectric detectors sensed smoldering fires on average 30 minutes earlier than the ionization detectors. The same study demonstrated that ionization detectors responded, on average, 50 seconds earlier than photoelectric detectors during flaming fire experiments. The relative margins of safety associated with a 30 minute earlier warning in a slow growing smoldering fire compared to a 50 second earlier warning for a fast growing flaming fire is difficult to determine.

  21. #21
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    Question

    Paul... out of curiosity, does the UK have any laws pertaining to the installation of smoke and CO detectors in residential dwellings?
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  22. #22
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainGonzo View Post
    Paul... out of curiosity, does the UK have any laws pertaining to the installation of smoke and CO detectors in residential dwellings?
    Hey Chief, there are very strong campaigns here, driven by the original US approach in the 1970s, to get detectors in every residence. The only laws (codes) I am aware of apply to apartment blocks.

  23. #23
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batt18 View Post
    Well literary license or not .... I find this part of the NIST conclusions of great relevance -
    1. There is no way you read the report. I did. You are cherry picking one sentence out of over 200 pages of data.

    2. I can do the same thing.

    Smoke alarms of either type installed on every level generally provided positive escape times for different fire types and locations. Adding smoke alarms in bedrooms increased the escape time provided, especially for smoldering fires.
    PROUD, HONORED AND HUMBLED RECIPIENT OF THE PURPLE HYDRANT AWARD - 10/2007.

  24. #24
    EuroFirefighter
    Batt18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI View Post
    There is no way you read the report. I did. You are cherry picking one sentence out of over 200 pages of data.
    Which report did you read George?, because the one I read was dated February of this year and comprised of nearly 400 pages!

    It must be understood that the NIST conclusions appear highly controversial and there is an apparent history of manufacturers and interested parties pushing them to 'clarify' statements in the original report. These clarifications are carefully worded but there is no mistaking, they are saying that 'available escape times are provided by all types of smoke detector (tested) providing they are installed on every level, outside and and inside every bedroom' of a residence, with all doors remaining closed.

    That is not denying the fact that in their tests they noted ....

    In summary, the research conducted by NIST staff leads to the conclusion that both ionization and photoelectric alarms provide enough time to save lives for most of the population under many fire scenarios; HOWEVER ionization alarms may not always alarm even when a room is filled with smoke from a smoldering fire, exposing the most sensitive populations with mobility limitations to an undetermined risk. Photoelectric detectors can provide a lot more warning time than ionization detectors in a smoldering fire; at the same time a smoldering fires can take a longer period to become dangerous. Ionization detectors can provide a little more time than photoelectric detectors in a flaming fire; in this case there can be little time to spare.
    In summary, it appears clear that the concerns of Mr Patton, Chief Fleming and several other gentlemen, are far from from promoting conspiracy theories and their work in raising these issues cannot possibly be aligned with such conspiracy stirring as 'men on the moon' and Kennedy assasinations! They have raised their concerns and now NIST, whom you so rightly support time and again George, have made clear statements (but carefully worded for obvious reasons) that ....

    In the NIST experiments the photoelectric detectors sensed smoldering fires on average 30 minutes earlier than the ionization detectors.

    and;

    Most field data suggest that ionization alarms have a greater propensity to nuisance alarm than photoelectric alarms, possibly indicating that certain activities such as cooking dominate reported nuisance alarms in the field.
    which is what these people have been suggesting for decades. If that is true, we are not to know at this time how many people have died because their detectors failed to operate in time ... or how many people removed batteries (as in the Boston tragedy where five lives were lost) because their ionization detector constantly false alarmed.

    I am not 'cherry picking' the research George I am quoting the nitty gritty of relevant points. This is alarming! Pardon the pun ....

  25. #25
    Forum Member
    volfirie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    558

    Default

    About four years ago we had a campaign mounted by a group of people quoting US evidence that ionisation smoke alarms didn't work and were killing people. Our fire services (all two of them in Victoria) came out rapidly with our own data to show that since the installation of smoke alarms was made mandatory in all dwellings, deaths in house fires had drastically reduced.

    The official view is this (taken from the Country Fire Authority of Victoria's public web site):

    Working smoke alarms save lives
    Building regulations state that every home in Victoria must have a smoke alarm complying with Australian Standard AS 3786. Existing homes may install battery-powered smoke alarms, but all new houses must be fitted with hardwired-in smoke alarms prior to occupancy.


    Make the right choice
    Smoke alarms are inexpensive and easy to install. When choosing an alarm for your home, be sure to select one that meets Australian Standard AS 3786.

    There are two types of smoke alarms - ionisation alarms that predominantly detect the presence of extremely small particles of smoke, and the newer photo-electric alarms that detect visible smoke.

    Research indicates that although both types of alarms give occupants time to escape, photo-electric alarms are consistently more effective at detecting smouldering fires in homes.

    CFA urges all householders to supplement their existing ionisation smoke alarms with photo-electric alarms.


    That is our official view. Each type has benefits, the best choice seems to be, have both.

    We are constantly called to house fires where the smoke alarm has alerted either the residents or neighbours to the existence of a fire. Photo-electric alarms are rare here - the ionisation type were around and cheap when the law was passed about fitting alarms in all dwellings.

    I may have said this before on this forum. However. The residents of the last house fire I attended stated categorically that the smoke alarm hadn't worked. Yet the alarm was clearly audible in the background when they called emergency; all calls are recorded. This is nothing to do with the argument about the different types of smoke alarm, but I think it interesting.
    "Professional" means your attitude to the job...

    Nullus Anxietas ..... (T Pratchett)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Who is responsible?
    By jprasek in forum Fire Politics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-07-2007, 12:36 AM
  2. Corruption in RI Nightclub Fire Investigation?
    By GeorgeWendtCFI in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-12-2004, 11:09 AM
  3. Are We Responsible????
    By BlueBird in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-23-2004, 11:44 PM
  4. How much Corruption and Theft in Fire Departments
    By Firefighter430 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-15-2004, 11:53 PM
  5. My own code or the Uniform Fire Code.
    By The Snake Man in forum Fire Prevention and Life Safety
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-26-2000, 07:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register