God-damned smoke alarms

Never knew if they worked as smoke detectors, but the 241Am sources were good...

(for those who want background) Smoke and CO Detectors have 3 categories:

1 Smoke only 2 CO only 3 Combination Smoke and CO Detection (normally the best choice)

Smoke Detection itself has 3 subcategories, defined by the sensor configuration:

1 photoelectric 2 ionization 3 dual-sensor (both photoelectric and ionization)

Photoelectric is best for large-particulate 'smoldering fires' (wood, etc., which create visible smoke), but poor at small-particulate ('clean-burning') flames. Ionization is opposite; best for small, poor for large particles. Hence the best overall choice (normally) is a dual-sensor.

In the U.S., Kidde and First Alert are the 2 leading brands. They both make all 3 sensor-types.

So to Sylvia's predicament.. What's triggering the false alarm? The Smoke aspect, or the CO? (They typically have 2 different alarm sounds &/or LEDs--so you can determine the trigger).

If smoke, then is it Dust (large particles)? Insects, arthropods? Vacuuming the area routinely is needed.

Cooking smoke (burnt food)? Try photoelectric-only type in that proximate area. (is less sensitive).

The newest high-tech models connect via WiFi to your home network, or some, the internet, so you can control them from your smartphone, etc.

cheers, RS

Well this story is well known but the two 241Am sources from a smoke detector are nowhere near anything of interest for such purposes. They are quite good to test how your MCA behaves though, especially with Ge detectors which have no low energy window, the 59.5 keV peak produces a lot of Compton working as noise around the threshold of the fast channel. And the sources from a smoke detector are just right for the purpose, strong enough but not too strong to be a problem because of that.

As ironically stated by the John Doe snipped-for-privacy@message.header troll in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me who has posted yet another incorectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 20 Aug 2021 17:29:47 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <sfooqa$mc9$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

As ironically stated by the John Doe snipped-for-privacy@message.header troll in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me who has posted yet another incorectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 20 Aug 2021 21:33:36 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <sfp73g$r65$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

You guys (anyone not living in Scotland) are laughing - at least you have some choices.

Our "government", panicked by a fire in flats in London has made the following law:

New Fire and Smoke Alarm Standard

Q: What is the new fire and smoke alarm standard and how many alarms are required to meet the standards?

A: The new standard requires:

one smoke alarm installed in the room most frequently used for general daytime living purposes one smoke alarm in every circulation space on each storey, such as hallways and landings one heat alarm installed in every kitchen

All alarms should be ceiling mounted and interlinked.

Where there is a carbon-fuelled appliance (such as boilers, fires (including open fires) and heaters) or a flue, a carbon monoxide detector is also required which does not need to be linked to the fire alarms.

Q: What types of housing will be covered by the new standard?

A: All homes will be covered by the new standard, as it is important that all homes should be safe for occupants regardless of tenure. It will be the property owner’s responsibility to meet the new standard, however, the legal duty to enforce the standard rests with local authorities. Where owners are unable to meet the standard, it is not a criminal offence.

We have a stay of execution until February 2022. You can fit battery or mains powered but the battery ones have to be " Tamper proof long-life lithium battery alarms ".

I'm not sure if the local authority charged with enforcement has a right of entry to my house.

MK

Do you mean the Grenfell Tower fire? If so, it was more than a little fire. On 14 June 2017, a fire broke out in the 24-storey Grenfell Tower block of flats in North Kensington, West London, at 00:54 BST; 72 people perished, including two who later died in hospital. More than 70 others were injured and 223 people escaped. It was the deadliest structural fire in the United Kingdom since the 1988 Piper Alpha disaster and the worst UK residential fire since World War II.

There have since been other fires in tower blocks; close calls all.

There are many interlocking scandals associated with Grenfell Tower, e.g. cladding specification, toffs not caring about plebs and doing excessive cost cutting, and others. Doubt anybody will end up in prison, though.

Well, the enquiry hasn't reported yet but the early indications are that the cause of most of the deaths was a complete failure of building regulations with companies and regulators cheating and ignoring respectively. The "toffs not caring about plebs" is just a silly political rant.The local council had just spent millions on adding the cladding to improve the spec of the building. They assumed that building regs. would work.

However, to get back to the point, the problem had nothing to do with smoke alarms. Far more lives are likely to be saved by enforcing the building regulations we already have.

MK

It isn't quite that simple, of course. There's a lot of airborne mud, and it remains to be seen how much sticks to each of the many involved parties. None will emerge clean. For example, by ssome accounts the council had indirectly required that cheaper cladding be used. They had previously paid out for equipment damage caused by power surges, but had not rectified the problem.

As for the attitudes, I'm afraid that the north-south divide in Kensington and Chelsea is a real effect. The most obvious example of that centres on Shirley Porter's attitude and actions.

There's validity there, but what simple/cheap and fast things can you do to reduce the probability of another catastrophic loss of life?

Given the background you chose to omit, your statement 'Our "government", panicked by a fire in flats in London...' appears disingenuous.

That, of course, is the crux of the issue. And, sadly, it cuts both ways!

On the one hand, smoke detectors are a cheap, expedient way to improve safety. On the other, it is far too easy for folks to act as if they've "solved" the problem -- because they "did something".

Here, a great deal of deference is given to grandfathering-in previously existing practices. E.g., it is very unlikely that a regulation would be put in place that required considerable expenditure/remodeling to implement. So, you'll see tougher regulations imposed on new construction (or "significant remodels") while the old practices are left in place for preexisting work.

OTOH, insurers can tip the balance; a home that's not "current" can legitimately claim to be a greater insurance risk --> higher premiums. (or, more cleverly applied as "reduced premiums for homes that are more 'current'"). So, the homeowner can face the choice of undertaking the expense of upgrading to "current Code" -- or, paying more every year for the "privilege" of not upgrading.

[Of course, there are also resale ramifications. E.g., the house I grew up in was wired with 14/2 BX. "Grounds", where present, were just ties to the metalic cable casing -- not a dedicated earth conductor. Additionally, the capacity of the service would be "challenging" given the increasing electrical demands on our households (e.g., I have 7 or 8 branch circuits in our *small* kitchen)]

snipped

Oh come on, sorry to bore our US friends but: Shirley Porter resigned (in disgrace) from the council in 1993 - approx 30 years ago. Is that really relevant background ?

And more generally, doing simple cheap and fast things is all too often the politicians choice.

The official guidance in Scotland clearly states that Grenfell was the motivation for the alarm legislation. But one of the few things that has not been blamed for the disaster is alarms (or lack of them).

MK

The phrase I used was "The most obvious example of that..."

Not just politicians, of course.

Agreed. "Something must be done. This is something. This must be done".

The whole situation is a mess.

For those that own the leasehold to their flats, the flats are effectively unsaleable until the cladding is replaced. That cost is being put on the leaseholders who already paid the building's owners for the original faulty cladding. That cost will be crippling. The cost of insurance is, IIRC, also crippling, since they have to pay people to patrol the buildings at night.

Grenfell Tower, and many like it, are social housing controlled, indirectly and deniably, by local government.

And, of course, while that is being done, any OTHER actions can be delayed (even if they need not be) with the completion of that first task as the "excuse".

I'm not sure I understand the occupancy.

Is this what we (US) would call "low income/subsidized housing"? I.e., housing let at "below market" (whatever that might mean) rates to folks who can't otherwise afford housing, in the community?

[i.e., the verysame folks that would typically have less "clout" in a population?]

"Social housing" is what drives my previous question. And, the "landlord" would be "local government"?

Because, then, I wonder why the occupants were having to have paid for the original "cladding" AND the revised cladding?

Crude description... No, they have have a lease, i.e have bought the right to live in the flat for a period of time (anything less than

100 years is suspect), and can sell it at any time.

The building is still owned by someone else. The leaseholders also have to pay maintenance charges defined by the building owners. What could possibly go wrong?

Not applicable to these /poor/ "plebs".

So, why the gummit tie-in?

How is this different than "Joe Blow, Inc" owning a building ("condominium complex") and subletting residences within?

How is it different than "Joe Blow" owning an *appartment* building (the term of the leases being shorter?)

Here, typically, each "unit" would be owned by an "individual" and the group of owners would create an entity (that they jointly owned AND FINANCED) for the *common* needs of the building.

So, the grounds would be maintained at the expense of this entity (and, ultimately, the individual owners). Likewise for the shared aspects of the building -- roof, exterior, parking lots, etc.

Note the recent collapse of such a structure in Florida

.Each of the "units" was independently owned. A "homeowner's association" coordinated "shared" maintenance. As they are responsible for assessing THEMSELVES any fees needed to keep the building standing/habitable, there was pressure to skimp on those costs.

And, as it is a shared structure, there is little *an* owner/occupant could do to shore up *his* portion of the structure.

So, the loss is *shared*. And, any litigation by owner/occupants is effectively "against themselves" (THEIR association).

[In practice, the insurance companies will end up footing a big part of the bill and the owners will take a haircut in the process]

I'm missing the point of that (?)

Sorry, I don't have time to explain the intricacies of UK housing, even if I understood them well enough!