On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 6:34:39 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 10/2/2015 1:20 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 3:04:44 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 10/2/2015 11:54 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 10:26:59 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
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?)

Thank you! You have finally made my point that the statistic you cited,
while true, does nothing to support your claim that leaving batteries
out is "common". That statistic is not relevant to this discussion. It
took us a while, but we're finally there.

No, you haven't defined "common"!

It is COMMON for people to run red lights!
(sit at any intersection in ANY city and you WILL see someone run a light!)
It is COMMON for people to be murdered with firearms (in practically any city)!
(listen to the news in any city and, chances are, today or yesterday
*someone* was murdered)
It is COMMON for gunmen to go on rampages at schools, malls, etc.
(how many times does it have to NOT happen to be considered a "rare" event)

If you look at the *probability* of any of these events happening, they
can be surprisingly LOW. But, that doesn't make them LESS COMMON!

It is RARE for us to find evidence of life on other planets!
It is RARE for us to find $100 bills on the sidewalk in front of us!
It is RARE for long lost relatives to show up on doorsteps!

You seem to think "common" means "a majority of the time". That's
not what "common" means:

- of frequent occurrence; usual; familiar:
- occurring or appearing frequently : familiar a common sight
- Occurring frequently or habitually; usual: It is common for movies
to last 90 minutes or more
- happening frequently, or existing in large amounts or numbers

etc.

You want "common" to mean:
- the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total
(opposed to minority)

If that were the case, there would be no "common" names, "common"
foods, "common" practices, etc. as very few things occur in a MAJORITY!

Put a NUMBER on your criteria. Or STFU.

Gee...you seem upset. Perhaps if you'd calm down, you could read what I
posted and grasp it.

Let me ask you a simple, straightforward question just to get us on the
same page:

If something happens 9.2% of the time, would you consider that to be
a common occurrence?

All I require is a simple "Yes" or "No". Can you do that?

You are confusing likelihood with frequency.

My chance of being MURDERED is essentially ZERO! Yet, murders are
FREQUENT and *common* occurrences!

I am *surrounded* by $20 bills. And, people carrying them. Yet,
I *rarely* encounter "loose" $20 bills on the sidewalk, in stores,
etc.

We have electrical storms pretty frequently. Yet, I have NEVER
encountered a person who was struck by lightning. It's a RARE event!

50,000 cars per day travel a half mile stretch of road a few blocks
from here. Some *small* fraction of those encounter a "red light".
An even smaller fraction of them encounter a "questionable" red
light (i.e., "MAYBE I can sneak through a long yellow"). Yet,
I can watch probably 50 people run red lights there in any given
24 hour period. That's 0.1%. FAR LESS THAN YOUR 9.2%!

YET, it is a COMMON OCCURRENCE! It happens frequently -- even if it
only happens some teeny-tiny fraction of the time that it *could* happen!

Why am I not surprised that you couldn't stay on topic? Now you're starting to yell and make comparisons that are so far off topic as to be as irrelevant as the statistics you brought up earlier.

Moving on...