FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Community Fire Safety => Topic started by: Mark on January 06, 2005, 08:41:41 AM
-
Its a bit quiet here lately?
The Building Regulations 1992, Approved Document B
"UK Building Regulations require all new homes to be fitted with a smoke alarm on each floor and that they should be interconnected so that detection of smoke by any one unit operates the alarm in all of them"
If its statistically proven that interconnected smoke alarms save lives and injury, are there initiatives to expand this into existing properties?
Happy New Year
Mark
-
Interconnection is definitely better, but it's very inconvenient in an existing home and the difference in performance would not justify the disruption.
Most local authorities and housing trusts use self contained smoke alarms with a built in 10 year battery. These batteries don't fit into toys or radios so they tend not to get nicked by the tenants.
I know that some social landlords do upgrade to mains/interlinked alarms when they carry out major refurbs of their properties - this seems a sensible approach where the property is being rewired.
You could talk to the social landlords in your area and see what they do.
-
I presume you mean by disruption the trunking and extra wiring, but I,m not sure what you mean by "the difference in performance would not justify the disruption"?
Thanks
Mark
-
I've always preferred interlinks for speed of alarm - the first detector to go off downstairs may not wake the occupants and the smoke spread would have to get to the top of the stairs & the landing upstairs before triggering a detector that could wake sleeping occupants - the time delay & spread of smoke between the two may be significant.
All my detectors are linked and I have them in bedrooms as well, not primarily as detectors as the risks are low (no moking, open fires, electric blankets, minimal electric kit, etc), but primarily as sounders to wake people up
-
Thats what I mean by the difference in performance. Interlinking will improve the effectiveness of the alarms but not enough to justify running alle the cables etc.
Remember that there are more health risks in a dwelling than just fire safety and a social landlord will need to adress all of them with a limited budget.
-
I understand. I read in a specifiers mag it is about £230 for a couple of hard wired alarms per property!!
But what about RF alarms. Even Dave Bevs FBU like the idea of wireless to the extent of offering £10,000 to come up with a solution. The problem im to believe is that they too are expensive and can be unreliable?
-
RF interconnection already exists and is covered in BS 5839-6.
-
wee b - dont agree with your comments re justification, but you have an opinion and has stimulated debate. i think ant's idea of using them primarily as sounders has merit in a variety of circumstances. fbu policy is that where firefighters are fitting they should fit at least one per storey and they should be capable of being interlinked, with advice being given on how to do this.
it would be great if they could be wireless/rf but im not aware of any f&rs that have investigated this option to any great extent
-
As always nobody likes talking about money and safety in the same sentance. Tough - that's life. If you have got only £10k to spend do you fit standard alarms in 1000 houses or linked alarms in 500?
-
If it were just cost and you could interlink 850 for !0k does the proposition look more favourable?
-
Dave
I don't think f&rs would fit Rf or third wire interlinked systems as they have to be hard wired. But could f&rs have some influence along with other stakeholders in the fitting of interlinked alarms especially if they were cost effective enough and have the significant impact that the FBU say they have quote, The National Document Section 2.
-
BS 5839-6 provides definitive advice as to when SAs SHOULD always be interlinked and when its just a ''preferable'' that they should be. Those who fail to comply risk liability. With regard to F&RS, they need to think about their liability too. And could they PLEASE STOP installing ionization chamber detectors. To do so has always contravened BS 5839-6 and lumbers the householder with endless false alarms to the dteriment of fire safety when people are driven to disable the devices.
-
wee b, i do understand your argument and its a valid view to hold
mark, f&r's are fitting alarms that have the capacity to be hard wired, not all of course but some
colin, i dont think posting on here will influence f&rs's (unfortunately at times !!)
i think the issue needs to be included in any training that f&rs's provide to their staff when 'designing suitable systems' - i believe more thought needs to be given on the design and suitability of systems in any given circumstances - too easy to go around plonking any type of alarm wherever it appears to be the correct place, with not enough thought given to the type of alarm that should be fitted (colins point i assume) the suitability of the alarm inc ability to warn occupants (taking into account their personal circumstances/living arrangements etc)
f & rs's MUST start to accept that there is more to home fire safety checks/visits than sticking alarms up, they need to be more professional in terms of system design and suitability (taking a leaf out of industries practicies, skills, knowledge and expertise - they often 'harp' on about learning the lessons of the commercial world when it suits)- ANYONE LISTENING - I THOUGHT NOT! (see colin, i told you!) but then again i am a submersive influence intent on destroying all the good work done by fire authorities the last few years!!
please note: no smoke alarms were hurt during the making of this message and every attempt has been made to protect the identity of anyone who resembles the above remarks!
dave bev
-
With regard to F&RS, they need to think about their liability too. And could they PLEASE STOP installing ionization chamber detectors. To do so has always contravened BS 5839-6 and lumbers the householder with endless false alarms to the dteriment of fire safety when people are driven to disable the devices.
Although this is probably cynical, perhaps it is something to do with the fact that there has traditionally always been a wide gulf in price between ionisation & photoelectric detectors. Also when the DS in question are a bulk donation from a manufacturer they always seem to give way the (cheaper) ion type.
I would say that most Domestic DS bought by householders are of the cheap ionisation type & presumably a large amount of those provided by LA's & FRS's too and could explain why numbers of fatal fires with DS fitted but US seems to crop up in the news a lot as I have encountered several people who admit to disabling their DS due to cooking and other unwanted signals.
For situations where hardwired alarms are not required the 10 yr sealed photoelectric seems the best choice, but as most consumers will look at price and not be prepared to withstand a technical bombardment of the pros & cons of the two types, how can we change things?
Of course if the EU set ever new regulations on the use of ionising radiation sources in products for the environment and safety and phase out ion detection we might not be discussing this in 10 years time. After all they got rid of Halon and we all thought that was the space age agent of the future....
-
Davey, Its softly softly catchee monkey. Plonking smoke alarms on ceilings was the right thing at one time. The thing was to get the SAs in and save lives, never mind the quality feel the width. Its time to move things forward and introduce a bit of finesse.
-
It is very clear and documented that the domestic smoke alarm has had a significant effect socially & economically, including all those ones fitted by F&RS, but isnt it about time they were made a bit more intelligent.
An Ion *alarm* against a photo *alarm* will improve the stats but your *alarm* still needs a human to respond to them....thats assuming that they can!!. My thoughts are that they are being treated like a commodity much like a Car or Burglar alarm (when was the last time you responded to one?) and such apathy is increasing.
Why not have a smoke alarm that that can respond and remove the threat of an impending fire without the need of human interaction? Or am I in fantasy land?
-
mark, you really need to get your product out on the streets, working and actually delivering what you say it does, however im sure you appreciate that if the build up of heat continues ie electric hot plate still continues to give off heat - there may still be a potential for a fire.
you have part of the solution - not all of it!
-
Dave If I had the perfect solution I would not be here, but im not troubled by solid plate cookers, but they still cool down albeit slower. What about the washing machines, blankets, toasters, dish washers?
The rationale being that smoke alarms are fitted in most properties (80%) and Pareto, bless his heart dictates that you will be hard pushed to increase that level of ownership unless nanny dictates.
My thoughts are that if we know smoke alarms generally work, how can we get them to give a better response,(ie earlier warning via interlinked) or preferably to act without the need of human response.
-
You need a heat detector to do that. I believe they call them sprinkler systems or come such strange and foreign term. Rumour has it that they even put fires out sometimes without the Daveys rolling up. OMG!!!! Davey, lobby parliament to have such devices banned lest they put more of the bruvvers out of work than the new RIP policies.
-
mark, just recieved some documentation on a water mist system fitted into an appliance - colin - no probs it'll never catch on, we all know that when a sprinkler goes off it causes untold damage, all heads actuate at once, they are continually going off for no reason blah blah blah - bit like the old 'a' type branch - now that was an advance in technology!! as for the miss management plans - feb 28th in parliament could be fun - the bruvvers AND sisters will be there!
-
Sounds interesting. Is it installed into an electric blanket, cooker, toaster, dishwasher, w/machine, space heater, tv and other numerous electrical\gas appliances???? Its hard enough bringing to market one item let alone 100 !! 2nd big test in front of the bruvs n sis's at mersey in two weeks time....and with the DVD footage of the 1st test from Moreton. Would you like one to put your pint glass on Dave?
-
Here as in US, Canada, Eire, Scotland {& elsewhere} hard wired i/connected is the requirement for New Build Homes via local Bldg Regs/Codes/Standards.
{Plug in sort of alarm therefore won't meet the standard.}
Rarely is there a reqm't for a specific type eg Ion/Optical.
Heat Alarms are increasingly called up for Kitchens, as source of
most residential fires. {Scotlland still hasn't adopted}.
Battery interconnectable alarms are available, but hard to locate, again due to price premium.{Available via specialist electrical wholesalers}.
These are interconnected by 12V bell wire, so I know some Hsg Associations get fitted by their maintenance man as no mains voltage involved, and no Part P implications either.
They exist in Ion & Optical formats, latter more expensive and have much higher battery consumption.
These also don't meet need of the Bldg Regs & are used in retrofit only;
typically short term whilst AC hard wired programme is planned/funded.
Comments have been submitted in 2004 on the Part B consultation, as currently Regs only apply to New Build/Loft Conversions etc.
As UK has say 22m dwellings, and new house build is say 160k pa, you can see it'll take an age to make any real inroads into existing stock.
In some US Cities they get round this by making new Building Codes
retrospective
ie applies all existing dwellings say from 1/4/05.
Or
some make Reg appy to existing stock whenever tenancy or ownership
changes.
{With Part P/Home Owner Packs, that may become viable here}.
Getting existing stock within The Regs is the challenge for us all.
Its a bit quiet here lately?
The Building Regulations 1992, Approved Document B
"UK Building Regulations require all new homes to be fitted with a smoke alarm on each floor and that they should be interconnected so that detection of smoke by any one unit operates the alarm in all of them"
If its statistically proven that interconnected smoke alarms save lives and injury, are there initiatives to expand this into existing properties?
Happy New Year
Mark
-
mark, whatever are you suggesting?
that i drink a lot or that i spill a lot!
or that mr todd owes me a pint?
x
-
Sounds like everyone owes you a pint!!
Could it be that you drink a lot THEN spill a lot.