On Oct 25, 3:27*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
*RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 24, 10:26*pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,
*RicodJour wrote:
http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PD...mokeAlarms.pdf
From page 59 of that report:
"Aging Home Smoke Alarms
snip
*Zero* mention of any scientific evidence *whatsoever* that age alone
would render a smoke alarm inoperative. Absolutely NOTHING to suggest
the rationale behind the guideline of replacing them every ten years.
Are you *quite* sure about THAT? *Perhaps *you* could contact the NFPA
(already capitalized) and ask to SEE their data. *I'm *sure* that
statistically SPEAKING one could determine the *likelihood* of HALF of
the *inoperative* smoke DETECTORS being over TEN *YEARS* OLD. *It is
*very* UNLIKELY that it would be a *random* occurrence.
Your words carry no more weight with the unseemly emphasis than
usual. *The NFPA - silly folk with a predilection for creating
arbitrary standards - have absolutely no data with which to back up
their recommendation. *You should write an angry letter. *Use a lot of
emphasis to show you really mean it.
R
You're the one holding them up as some sort of authority.
Huh? It's early, I was up late and I'm only halfway through my first
cup of coffee, so maybe I'm missing something here... I'm holding up
the NFPA as some sort of authority? WTF does that mean? They ARE the
authority. Have you ever read your state's fire code? Why don't you
do a quick search of it and see how many times the NFPA is
referenced. It's almost on every damn page!
I don't know
whether the NFPA has any data to back up their claim, but if they do,
they sure didn't put it on page 59 of their silly report. And since
their recommendation makes no reasonable sense, I'm pretty sure that,
yeah, it has no reasonable basis.
Why would you assume that that report was the sum total of all of
their testing? I love this part - you are "pretty sure" there is no
reasonable basis for what an impartial, non-profit testing agency
recommends.
The only gods I worship are Science and Reason and Logic, and there's
precious little of any of those left in the world.
Exactly which category does "pretty sure" fall under - science, reason
or logic? Again, capitalizing a word doesn't give it more weight.
You choose to ignore something, based on no data other than your
personal observation, and assume that an international agency is
fabricating data in some Machiavellian scheme? That about sum it up?
There are a lot of reasons why a ten year old piece of electronic gear
might not function, none of which have jack squat to do with needing to
be replaced for no good reason. Maybe clean the greasy conductive dust
out, brighten up the battery contacts, put in a fresh battery, and THEN
tell me the thing's no good.
Solid state electronic components tend to last a very, very long time,
particularly when they're in an environment as innocuous as a house and
never get used.
The house may be innocuous...now, but the smoke detector is not a dawn-
to-dusk sensor on your post light. Risk v. reward and all that.
You read a piece of nonsense from an agency of the gummint, and you hold
it to be gospel just because you left your critical thinking skills down
at the bar.
As soon as I see someone write gummint/guvmint or the like, it usually
indicates that they don't trust any authority. Sometimes that's good,
sometimes it's not. Let me ask you this - Do you build to code or do
you ignore it?
BTW, before you knock something and label it, do yourself a favor and
know what you're talking about first. The NFPA is not a branch of the
government.
"The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is an international
nonprofit organization that was established in 1896. The company’s
mission is to reduce the worldwide burden of fire and other hazards on
the quality of life by providing and advocating consensus codes and
standards, research, training, and education."
I'll emphasize *whatever the ***** I want to emphasize. But don't worry,
I won't stoop to using those gay emoticons.
Thanks!
R