Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

WTHR aquarium test

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
15,340
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Mar 31, 2010

WTHR-TV in Indianapolis conducted an aquarium test to show the dramatic difference between ionization and photoelectric smoke alarms. Inspired by a similar demonstration by the World Fire Safety Foundation, investigative reporter Bob Segall shows why smoke alarms with photoelectric technology are a much better option for detecting slow-burning smoky fires, which kill hundreds of people in homes and apartments each year. This news report first aired on WTHR-TV July 30, 2007.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 0 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (7)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • For more information about WTHR's 'Deadly Delay' TV series exposing the ionization smoke alarms in almost all US, UK, Canadian, New Zealand and Australian homes, Google:

    The World Fire Safety Foundation WTHR Deadly Delay

  • @firealarmfreak5 CO alarms must measure the CO concetration over time. In the US must comply with the the UL 2034 standard. The standard requires the following:

    At 70 parts per million: Unit must sound alarm within 60-240 minutes

    At 150 parts per million: Unit must sound alarm within 10-50 minutes

    At 400 parts per million: Unit must sound alarm within 4-15 minutes

    So in the aquarium test, the alarm had to sense on of the levels for a given period before it alarmed. Hope that helps.

  • The issue with the slow response of ionization smoke alarms is a well documented issue. 95% of all US/Canadian homes have ionization alarms installed. The survival rate in a typical residential fire is only 40%. Photoelectric alarms have roughly a 96% survival rate. Around 20% of the time, an ionization alarm will never sound. Ionization alarms are also notorious for nuisance trips when cooking and are 8x's more likely to be intentionally discabled.

  • Can this video be downloaded for educational copies?

  • @PinkJazzX Maybe it is rigged how could you tell from this, anyone who says this is a fair test is a liar, why not put both detectors in at the same time? because that would be fair test?

  • It took over 8 minutes for the CO detector to go off?

  • Anyone who says this test is rigged is a liar.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more