On 10/1/2015 5:36 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 3:47:16 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
You said it's a common practice for people to leave the batteries out. I say
it's not "common" in relation to how many detectors there are installed across
the globe.

Whether the batteries are left out for a night, a day or a year before the
fatal fires starts has nothing to do with the commonality of the practice.
How often they are left out as compared how often they are not is all that
counts when determining how "common" the practice is.

From a 9/2015 NFPA report:

Smoke Alarm Power Sources
Hardwired smoke alarms were present in 48% of reported home fires with smoke
alarms. Alarms powered by battery only were present in in 46% of reported home
fires.

In reported home fires in which the fire was large enough to activate the
alarm,
- Hardwired smoke alarms operated 94% of the time.
- Battery-powered smoke alarms operated in four out of five (80%) fires.

Reasons that Smoke Alarms Did Not Operate when Present in Large Enough Fires
--------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In fires in which the smoke alarms were present but did not operate,
- Almost half (46%) of the smoke alarms had missing or disconnected
batteries. Nuisance alarms were the leading reason for disconnected
smoke alarms.
- Dead batteries caused one-quarter (24%) of the smoke alarm failures.
- Only 7% of the failures were due to hardwired power source problems,
including disconnected smoke alarms, power outages, and power shut-offs.

So, in response to your comment, below:
"Common? Until I see the numbers, I'll vote No."
I vote *yes* (70% of the fires!) -- unless you'd care to offer some OTHER
numbers?

Right, in 70% of homes *in which the smoke alarms were present but did not
operate* dead or missing batteries was the cause. No one denies that dead
or missing batteries will cause a smoke detector not to operate. The problem
is (once again) that that is not what we are discussing.

I'll try again: You said that the practice of leaving batteries out after
they are removed due to chirping is "common". I, once again, say that when
compared to all the cases where the batteries are *not* left out, the
practice is *not* common. The *practice of leaving the batteries out* is not
common. Does it happen? Yes. Do bad things happen when someone does that? Yes.
Is it common? Not in the grand scheme of all detectors everywhere.

Can you stick to that statement and tell me how you know that the practice is
common? Tell me how many times batteries are left out vs. how many times
they are replaced. Citing statistics related to how many smoke
detectors didn't operate due to missing batteries (46%) does nothing to
support your claim that the practice of leaving batteries out is "common". All
that does is tell us that missing batteries is a common cause for smoke
detectors not to operate. Well, yeah. I think that's pretty obvious.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the above statistic cites that 46% of those
FIRES had smoke detectors with batteries "missing or disconnected". Do you
think the "smoke detector police" are going to arbitrarily survey homes
where NO FIRES HAVE BEEN REPORTED to see if their smoke detectors have
batteries in place? If a battery is left out for a year (assume a battery
normally *lasts* a year, does that count as *one* event? Or, more than one?)

Will the smoke detector police ensure that you *have* smoke detectors in
a residence if the residence is not offered for sale?

What criteria would you use to claim this practice was *RARE*? (!common)

Now, citing statistics that show 55% of the millions upon millions of smoke
detectors that needed batteries did not have them replaced would indeed
indicate that the practice of leaving the batteries out is common.

"Common" doesn't mean "in a majority of cases". Common means "of frequent
occurrence". "Daniel" is a "common" name. By no means are 50.0001% of
the people in the world/country named "Daniel". In fact, it is the
*10th* most common name in the US -- yet LESS THAN 1% of the population
having it! There are no names that rise to the "55% level" that you
seem to suggest would constitute 'common-ness'

Why don't *you* come up with a criteria to indicate what *NUMBER* you
consider to be representative of the term "common". Then, *justify*
that number (in an OBJECTIVE sense).

You can start by obtaining NUMBERS for the actual number of
residences/occupancies that have/require smoke detectors, then
the number of smoke detectors currently deployed in those areas,
then, the NUMBER you would consider to be representative of
the adjective "COMMON".