19 / 116
www. e l e c t r i c a l c o n n e c t i o n . c om . a u
19
are seemingly far superior to ionisation for
residential applications, and yet ionisation
alarms still dominate the market.
Adrian Butler is a retired firefighter
who started The World Fire Safety
Foundation in 2000 with the goal of
educating the market about flawed
detectors and to have ionisation alarms
eliminated from Australian homes.
Adrian estimates that as many as
90% of homes have ionisation units
installed, and they will likely not
operate in time for you to escape in the
event of a fire.
“This issue can be traced right
back to the 1970s. The International
Association of Fire Chiefs commissioned
a report that found that ionisation
alarms weren’t safe, lives were at risk
and fire chiefs should recommend only
photoelectric alarms,” he says.
“The battle has raged for more than
40 years.
“Perhaps foolishly, I believed that
when we started The World Fire Safety
Foundation in 2000 the problem would
be resolved in a couple of years. The
evidence back then was so profound.”
And yet very little has changed –
until recently.
Before starting the foundation, Adrian
ran a successful franchise in Australia and
New Zealand that sold ionisation alarms.
“We sold between 10,000 and
20,000,” he says.
“But then we noted that these alarms
would go off when people were cooking
but not when there was an actual fire.
“Some people just refuse to believe
there is an issue. Their alarms go off
when they cook their toast, so they think
their alarm is really effective. It isn’t.
“Ionisation alarms are sub-micron
particle detectors. They will detect
sub-micron particles (invisible to the
eye) emitted by the heating elements of
a toaster or griller. However, they won’t
detect visible smoke, even though they
are sold with ‘smoke detector’ on
the packaging.
“In the middle of the night, if your
house catches fire – specifically a
smouldering fire, the type that kills –
ionisation alarms remain silent.
“Until there’s sufficient heat to
generate sub-micron particles they
don’t make a sound.”
Adrian says a house can fill with deadly
smoke, and it’s not until the flames erupt
that an ionisation alarm will activate.
At that point it’s usually too late for
a safe escape.
“The solution isn’t actually that
difficult. The industry just seems to want
to make it complicated so they don’t have
to admit that they screwed up.
“Ionisation smoke alarms are so
dangerous they should be banned
and recalled.”
If Adrian is correct that up to 90%
of installed alarms in the country are
ionisation units, the question must be
asked: ‘who is benefitting?’
“I think it’s more a case of
manufacturers being afraid of litigation
if they have to admit that the alarms
they have sold for decades don’t detect
visible smoke,” he says.
TESTING TIMES
In order for a smoke detector to be sold
in Australia, it must be tested by CSIRO
to ensure it complies with Australian
Standard 3786.
Section 2.1 of the Standard states
“smoke alarms shall be designed to
respond reliably to the presence of
smoke”. Adrian says this is the primary
reason why ionisation alarms should
be outlawed.
“As ionisation detectors don’t respond
to smoke, obviously compliance with this
part of the Standard is not possible.
“However, some manufacturers
decided to change the definition of
the word ‘smoke’ from visible particles
of combustion to include invisible
particles. Effectively, they have
rewritten the dictionary.
“So, while the public perception of
smoke is that it is something you can
see, the industry disagrees. And that’s
where all the problems arise. Sub-micron
particles aren’t present in sufficient
numbers to set off an ionisation alarm in
the early, smouldering stage of a fire.”
The main test involves what is called
‘light obscuration’, which measures the
level of smoke that must be present to
activate an alarm. Photoelectric alarms,
for example, must go off before light
obscuration reaches 15%.
“As for ionisation alarms … well, nobody
knows exactly,” Adrian says.
“Whenever we have asked for testing
data from the manufacturers or from
CSIRO, which performs the compliance
tests, we are told it’s commercial in
confidence. But somehow this is only the
case for ionisation alarms and
not photoelectrics.
“I even got my local member of
parliament to ask for the data, and they
refused to tell him. Why?”
Recently, Adrian was asked to testify
as an expert witness in a court case in
Alabama after three young girls perished
in a house fire. The home
was fitted with three operational
ionisation alarms.
“We told the family’s lawyers that the
manufacturer, which sells its products in
Australia, needed to produce its testing
data, to show the level of smoke at which
its ionisation alarms activated. Within 48
hours of the data being received, the case
Ionisation alarms were never intended to be smoke
detectors – they are designed to detect flame.