Hello,

Are these two outfits the same ?

One more reliable than the other ?

Thanks,
R.

On 5/14/18 6:50 AM, Robert Rose wrote:
Hello,

Are these two outfits the same ?
Don't know.

One more reliable than the other ?

Thanks,
R.

Consumer Reports has the First Alert 3120B and the Kidde PI2010
rated the same.
The Kidde is subject to recall though. Both are hardwired with battery
backup.
They rate the First Alert SA320CN and the Kidde PI9010 the same. The
Kidde is subject to recall. The second pair are battery only.
Stay away from ionization detectors. The previous four detectors
are all rated in the
upper 80s. The best ionization detectors are rated at 55.

On Mon, 14 May 2018 07:17:09 -0500, Dean Hoffman
wrote:

On 5/14/18 6:50 AM, Robert Rose wrote:
Hello,

Are these two outfits the same ?
Don't know.

One more reliable than the other ?

Thanks,
R.

Consumer Reports has the First Alert 3120B and the Kidde PI2010
rated the same.
The Kidde is subject to recall though. Both are hardwired with battery
backup.
They rate the First Alert SA320CN and the Kidde PI9010 the same. The
Kidde is subject to recall. The second pair are battery only.
Stay away from ionization detectors. The previous four detectors
are all rated in the
upper 80s. The best ionization detectors are rated at 55.

If you want cancer, be sure to put one in your home. All smoke detectors
contain a radioactive substance. They MIGHT save you in a fire, while
they WILL cause you cancer. I had a building inspection done in my home,
and they told me I was required to have smoke detectors in my home. I
told him that if he even brought one of them cancer causing things
within 100 yards from my home, I would have him arrested. He said it's
required to have them in all homes. I told him to setup a court case,
because I refuse to follow that requirement, and to feel free to write
that on my report, along with the reason I refused. He wrote it down and
he didn't say any more about it.

If you want cancer, be sure to put one in your home. All smoke detectors
contain a radioactive substance.

no there are various types, some use optical sensors.

If you are concerned about the low level of radioactivity I suggest you get the optical type and also do not bring any bananas into your house.

m

On 5/14/2018 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2018 07:17:09 -0500, Dean Hoffman
wrote:

On 5/14/18 6:50 AM, Robert Rose wrote:
Hello,

Are these two outfits the same ?
Don't know.

One more reliable than the other ?

Thanks, R.

Consumer Reports has the First Alert 3120B and the Kidde PI2010
rated the same. The Kidde is subject to recall though. Both are
hardwired with battery backup. They rate the First Alert SA320CN
and the Kidde PI9010 the same. The Kidde is subject to recall.
The second pair are battery only. Stay away from ionization
detectors. The previous four detectors are all rated in the upper
80s. The best ionization detectors are rated at 55.

If you want cancer, be sure to put one in your home. All smoke
detectors contain a radioactive substance. They MIGHT save you in a
fire, while they WILL cause you cancer. I had a building inspection
done in my home, and they told me I was required to have smoke
detectors in my home. I told him that if he even brought one of them
cancer causing things within 100 yards from my home, I would have him
arrested. He said it's required to have them in all homes. I told him
to setup a court case, because I refuse to follow that requirement,
and to feel free to write that on my report, along with the reason I
refused. He wrote it down and he didn't say any more about it.


The risk from the radiation released by a properly installed ionization
smoke detector is essentially nil. The radiation released is alpha
radiation, which is so low in energy that is completely shielded by a
thin sheet of paper, and certainly by the capsule containing it within
the smoke alarm. Even if the smoke alarm were broken apart, your skin
would shield you completely. In any case, the total radiation released
is less than 1/3 typical background radiation, and much less than you
receive from a cosmic rays during a single typical commercial airline
flight. In terms of absolute risk, your risk of dying from a house
fire, an automobile trip of even a few blocks, lightning strike, or
insect or snake bite is exponentially higher than the risk of dying from
the radiation from a smoke detector. Smoke detector save lives.

On Mon, 14 May 2018 10:10:53 -0400, Peter
wrote:

The risk from the radiation released by a properly installed ionization
smoke detector is essentially nil. The radiation released is alpha
radiation, which is so low in energy that is completely shielded by a
thin sheet of paper, and certainly by the capsule containing it within
the smoke alarm. Even if the smoke alarm were broken apart, your skin
would shield you completely. In any case, the total radiation released
is less than 1/3 typical background radiation, and much less than you
receive from a cosmic rays during a single typical commercial airline
flight. In terms of absolute risk, your risk of dying from a house
fire, an automobile trip of even a few blocks, lightning strike, or
insect or snake bite is exponentially higher than the risk of dying from
the radiation from a smoke detector. Smoke detector save lives.


+1

You can lead the nymshifter to knowledge, but you can't make him learn

On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:10:57 AM UTC-4, Peter wrote:
On 5/14/2018 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2018 07:17:09 -0500, Dean Hoffman
wrote:

On 5/14/18 6:50 AM, Robert Rose wrote:
Hello,

Are these two outfits the same ?
Don't know.

One more reliable than the other ?

Thanks, R.

Consumer Reports has the First Alert 3120B and the Kidde PI2010
rated the same. The Kidde is subject to recall though. Both are
hardwired with battery backup. They rate the First Alert SA320CN
and the Kidde PI9010 the same. The Kidde is subject to recall.
The second pair are battery only. Stay away from ionization
detectors. The previous four detectors are all rated in the upper
80s. The best ionization detectors are rated at 55.

If you want cancer, be sure to put one in your home. All smoke
detectors contain a radioactive substance. They MIGHT save you in a
fire, while they WILL cause you cancer. I had a building inspection
done in my home, and they told me I was required to have smoke
detectors in my home. I told him that if he even brought one of them
cancer causing things within 100 yards from my home, I would have him
arrested. He said it's required to have them in all homes. I told him
to setup a court case, because I refuse to follow that requirement,
and to feel free to write that on my report, along with the reason I
refused. He wrote it down and he didn't say any more about it.


The risk from the radiation released by a properly installed ionization
smoke detector is essentially nil. The radiation released is alpha
radiation, which is so low in energy that is completely shielded by a
thin sheet of paper, and certainly by the capsule containing it within
the smoke alarm. Even if the smoke alarm were broken apart, your skin
would shield you completely. In any case, the total radiation released
is less than 1/3 typical background radiation, and much less than you
receive from a cosmic rays during a single typical commercial airline
flight. In terms of absolute risk, your risk of dying from a house
fire, an automobile trip of even a few blocks, lightning strike, or
insect or snake bite is exponentially higher than the risk of dying from
the radiation from a smoke detector. Smoke detector save lives.

I'd add to your analysis that there is no evidence that smoke detectors
cause cancer. But there is overwhelming evidence that without a smoke
detector, many people die needlessly in home fires. It's rather bizarre
when someone let's an imaginary threat outweigh their concern for the
real threat.

On Mon, 14 May 2018 07:37:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:



I'd add to your analysis that there is no evidence that smoke detectors
cause cancer. But there is overwhelming evidence that without a smoke
detector, many people die needlessly in home fires. It's rather bizarre
when someone let's an imaginary threat outweigh their concern for the
real threat.

Reminds me of when I picked up my Uncle to go lake fishing with my '64 Bug.
It was my first car with seatbelts. My buddy had recently been killed when his car
tossed him out and rolled on him, so I started using the belt.
When I fastened my belt, he looked at me like I was a crazy man.
He actually yelled at me "What the hell are you doing with that thing!?"
I told him about my buddy, and how his legs were cut off and he bled out.
He then threw his clincher. "What if you go in the river?!"
I didn't even bother arguing with him, just picked up the beer and went fishing.
I didn't even suggest he fasten his belt, and he never did.

On 5/14/2018 2:05 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2018 07:37:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:



I'd add to your analysis that there is no evidence that smoke
detectors cause cancer. But there is overwhelming evidence that
without a smoke detector, many people die needlessly in home fires.
It's rather bizarre when someone let's an imaginary threat outweigh
their concern for the real threat.

Reminds me of when I picked up my Uncle to go lake fishing with my
'64 Bug. It was my first car with seatbelts. My buddy had recently
been killed when his car tossed him out and rolled on him, so I
started using the belt. When I fastened my belt, he looked at me like
I was a crazy man. He actually yelled at me "What the hell are you
doing with that thing!?" I told him about my buddy, and how his legs
were cut off and he bled out. He then threw his clincher. "What if
you go in the river?!" I didn't even bother arguing with him, just
picked up the beer and went fishing. I didn't even suggest he fasten
his belt, and he never did.



My late father-in-law was still driving in 2011 when he was 95. He
lived in Florida. Absolutely refused to wear seat belts because he was
convinced that if he ended up in one of the many canals near his home,
he would drown. We could hear the ding-ding-ding of his car's warning
chime while he was speaking to us on his cell phone as he drove (!!!)
even though he swore that he was buckled up. He was quite hard of
hearing and the chime never bothered him. When we told him that we
could hear the seat belt warning chime on the phone, he'd say he
"forgot" to buckle up and couldn't hear the chime. He was a real
firecracker. Fortunately he never had an accident, but had to give up
driving soon afterwards when he developed dementia. He wanted to live
to be 100 but didn't quite make it.

On Mon, 14 May 2018 07:06:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

no there are various types, some use optical sensors.

Maybe they have some that do not contain radioactive materials now.
Originally they all had radioactivity.

But if this is true, then the inspector should have mentioned that to
me. However, I have yet to find any building inspector who knows
anything about construction, wiring, plumbing, etc.

Then again, a friend has a store and I do some small repairs for him. He
said the inspectors told him to correct the way his window signs are
plugged in. There are 5 signs plugged into two 3-way plugs in one
outlet. Each sign is LED and draws less than 20W per sign. Surely not a
hazard, but the inspector said the 3-ways are not allowed. So I got a
power strip and used that instead.

What gets me, is that directly overhead from those signs was a junction
box with the wires sticking out, wirenuts exposed, and no cover on that
box. It was that way when he bought the building. The inspector said
nothing about that. Yet I know that by code that box needs to have a
cover on it. When I went to get the power strip, I bought a cover for
that box at the same time and fixed that, even though it was not
required by the inspector. (If nothing else, it looks better).

Inspectors are just taught ot look for certain things, and 3-way plugs
are on their "bad list" even if they are only powering some very low
wattage LED signs. But it would not matter if they were 10W signs or
1000W fryers, the inspectors dont know the difference. They just see the
3-way and condemn it, regardless of it's use.

On Mon, 14 May 2018 14:34:09 -0400, Peter wrote:


My late father-in-law was still driving in 2011 when he was 95. He
lived in Florida. Absolutely refused to wear seat belts because he was
convinced that if he ended up in one of the many canals near his home,
he would drown. We could hear the ding-ding-ding of his car's warning
chime while he was speaking to us on his cell phone as he drove (!!!)
even though he swore that he was buckled up. He was quite hard of
hearing and the chime never bothered him. When we told him that we
could hear the seat belt warning chime on the phone, he'd say he
"forgot" to buckle up and couldn't hear the chime. He was a real
firecracker. Fortunately he never had an accident, but had to give up
driving soon afterwards when he developed dementia. He wanted to live
to be 100 but didn't quite make it.

Yeah, I suspect many old-timers never wore a seatbelt. In Florida, for canals, now that
most cars have electric windows, it's suggested you have a center punch to break out a
window. Unsnapping a seatbelt should be the least of your problems.
Though I was high-lined from my destroyer to a cruiser one time in the north Atlantic,
and couldn't unsnap myself from the bosun's chair when I arrived. I made sure to study the
belt buckle before the return trip. That chair is heavy, and I would have sunk like a
rock, despite the vest.

On Mon, 14 May 2018 14:00:39 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:


Yeah, I suspect many old-timers never wore a seatbelt. In Florida, for canals, now that
most cars have electric windows, it's suggested you have a center punch to break out a
window. Unsnapping a seatbelt should be the least of your problems.
Though I was high-lined from my destroyer to a cruiser one time in the north Atlantic,
and couldn't unsnap myself from the bosun's chair when I arrived. I made sure to study the
belt buckle before the return trip. That chair is heavy, and I would have sunk like a
rock, despite the vest.

I'm not sure exactly when cars first starting having seat belts, but I
think it was in the 1970s. Before that, cars did not have them. My first
cars were from the 60s, and they did not have seat belts. Nor were they
required back then.

In my opinion, seatbelts are just revenue makers for law enforcement. I
can not see how they could make it a law to require them, since it's
only for the driver or passenger's own safety. But they did it because
they know it would be a money maker. I dont mind wearing them on the
highway when I'm driving at 55 or greater. But in town, when speed
limits are 30mph or less, it makes no sense to use them. I find it
really annoying when I am driving around town and stopping at a store
every 2 minutes and have to keep fussing with them seatbelts. But I know
that if I get caught without one, I can get a fine. I think that is just
wrong!

On Mon, 14 May 2018 14:23:39 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 14 May 2018 14:00:39 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:


Yeah, I suspect many old-timers never wore a seatbelt. In Florida, for canals, now that
most cars have electric windows, it's suggested you have a center punch to break out a
window. Unsnapping a seatbelt should be the least of your problems.
Though I was high-lined from my destroyer to a cruiser one time in the north Atlantic,
and couldn't unsnap myself from the bosun's chair when I arrived. I made sure to study the
belt buckle before the return trip. That chair is heavy, and I would have sunk like a
rock, despite the vest.

I'm not sure exactly when cars first starting having seat belts, but I
think it was in the 1970s. Before that, cars did not have them. My first
cars were from the 60s, and they did not have seat belts. Nor were they
required back then.

In my opinion, seatbelts are just revenue makers for law enforcement. I
can not see how they could make it a law to require them, since it's
only for the driver or passenger's own safety. But they did it because
they know it would be a money maker. I dont mind wearing them on the
highway when I'm driving at 55 or greater. But in town, when speed
limits are 30mph or less, it makes no sense to use them. I find it
really annoying when I am driving around town and stopping at a store
every 2 minutes and have to keep fussing with them seatbelts. But I know
that if I get caught without one, I can get a fine. I think that is just
wrong!

I don't feel comfortable without a seat belt, law or no law. Keeps you in a driving
position. Not so important now, but was with bench seats.
Had a buddy with a '58 Chevy take a corner and he was actually sitting in my lap,
hanging onto to the wheel with his left hand, until he could pull himself back.

On 05/14/2018 03:23 PM, wrote:
I find it
really annoying when I am driving around town and stopping at a store
every 2 minutes and have to keep fussing with them seatbelts. But I know
that if I get caught without one, I can get a fine. I think that is just
wrong!

Thank a democrat for another law taking away your right to choose.

The first seat belt law was a federal law, Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, which took effect on January 1, 1968, that required all vehicles (except buses) to be fitted with seat belts in all designated
seating positions.

On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 2:05:08 PM UTC-4, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2018 07:37:13 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:



I'd add to your analysis that there is no evidence that smoke detectors
cause cancer. But there is overwhelming evidence that without a smoke
detector, many people die needlessly in home fires. It's rather bizarre
when someone let's an imaginary threat outweigh their concern for the
real threat.

Reminds me of when I picked up my Uncle to go lake fishing with my '64 Bug.
It was my first car with seatbelts. My buddy had recently been killed when his car
tossed him out and rolled on him, so I started using the belt.
When I fastened my belt, he looked at me like I was a crazy man.
He actually yelled at me "What the hell are you doing with that thing!?"
I told him about my buddy, and how his legs were cut off and he bled out.
He then threw his clincher. "What if you go in the river?!"
I didn't even bother arguing with him, just picked up the beer and went fishing.
I didn't even suggest he fasten his belt, and he never did.

I remember one of the big arguments from those opposed to seat belts
at the time was that if you had a crash and the car caught fire, you
might not be able to get out of the seatbelt. The fact that in many
crashes that severe without the belt you'd be unconscious, dead or
otherwise unable to get out anyway escaped them. There were probably
some odd accidents where a seatbelt was a disadvantage, but overall
they have saved a lot of lives and more serious injuries.

On 5/14/2018 4:53 PM, bob wrote:
On 05/14/2018 03:23 PM, wrote:
I find it
really annoying when I am driving around town and stopping at a store
every 2 minutes and have to keep fussing with them seatbelts. But I know
that if I get caught without one, I can get a fine. I think that is just
wrong!

Thank a democrat for another law taking away your right to choose.

The first seat belt law was a federal law, Title 49 of the United States
Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, which took effect on
January 1, 1968, that required all vehicles (except buses) to be fitted
with seat belts in all designated seating positions.



Putting on a seatbelt takes just seconds and is just a habit. I guess
it is harder if you fight the idea of having to wear one.

I started wearing one before the law was if effect. I also walked away
from a pretty serious accident that could have tossed me out. Maybe it
should be choice, not law, but it is the right choice.

On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 3:25:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Mon, 14 May 2018 14:00:39 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:


Yeah, I suspect many old-timers never wore a seatbelt. In Florida, for canals, now that
most cars have electric windows, it's suggested you have a center punch to break out a
window. Unsnapping a seatbelt should be the least of your problems.
Though I was high-lined from my destroyer to a cruiser one time in the north Atlantic,
and couldn't unsnap myself from the bosun's chair when I arrived. I made sure to study the
belt buckle before the return trip. That chair is heavy, and I would have sunk like a
rock, despite the vest.

I'm not sure exactly when cars first starting having seat belts, but I
think it was in the 1970s. Before that, cars did not have them. My first
cars were from the 60s, and they did not have seat belts. Nor were they
required back then.

They first started appearing in 1961 and were mandatory for 1968 model
year cars.





In my opinion, seatbelts are just revenue makers for law enforcement.

Well, at least you're consistent with your position on smoke detectors.




I
can not see how they could make it a law to require them, since it's
only for the driver or passenger's own safety. But they did it because
they know it would be a money maker.

They were introduced as a safety requirement by the feds. The only
penalties would have been on manufacturers
if they did not implement them. They all did. It was only decades later
that penalties started to come into place for not wearing one. You
could argue that the motive is revenue for that, but the evidence is
overwhelming that seatbelts save lives.



I dont mind wearing them on the
highway when I'm driving at 55 or greater. But in town, when speed
limits are 30mph or less, it makes no sense to use them. I find it
really annoying when I am driving around town and stopping at a store
every 2 minutes and have to keep fussing with them seatbelts. But I know
that if I get caught without one, I can get a fine. I think that is just
wrong!

With speed limits of 30 MPH, people are doing ~40. Take a look at
a 40 MPH head on collision or even 40 into a tree and get back to us.
I would agree that it should be your right to not wear one if you
don't want to.

On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 5:04:45 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/14/2018 4:53 PM, bob wrote:
On 05/14/2018 03:23 PM, wrote:
I find it
really annoying when I am driving around town and stopping at a store
every 2 minutes and have to keep fussing with them seatbelts. But I know
that if I get caught without one, I can get a fine. I think that is just
wrong!

Thank a democrat for another law taking away your right to choose.

The first seat belt law was a federal law, Title 49 of the United States
Code, Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, which took effect on
January 1, 1968, that required all vehicles (except buses) to be fitted
with seat belts in all designated seating positions.



Putting on a seatbelt takes just seconds and is just a habit. I guess
it is harder if you fight the idea of having to wear one.

I started wearing one before the law was if effect. I also walked away
from a pretty serious accident that could have tossed me out. Maybe it
should be choice, not law, but it is the right choice.

Something I recently learned while working on the BMW and I would assume
it's not unique to just BMWs, is that the airbag deployment algorithm
uses whether the seatbelts are buckled or not to decide when and how to deploy
the airbags. They basically have a crash severity rating that's made
real time as it's happening. Starting with the lowest level impact,
it will do nothing. Moving up in intensity, if the seatbelt is buckled
it will not deploy the frontal airbag, but if it's not buckled then
it will do a stage 1 deployment, where it does a lower velocity inflation.
Next level up in crash intensity, it will do a stage 1 if the belt is
buckled, a stage 2, if it's not.

So, you could have the same crash with a seatbelt on and not have the
airbag go off at all, where with no belt it will fire. And if it fires
in other crashes, it could fire less powerfully with a seatbelt, which
is presumably safer, less likely to injure the person. Could be a
really good thing if you had a seatbelt on in one of those Takata airbag
cars that was killing some people when it fired.

On Mon, 14 May 2018 07:50:38 -0400, Robert Rose
wrote in

Hello,

Are these two outfits the same ?

One more reliable than the other ?

Thanks,
R.

I would go with Kidde.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On 5/14/2018 5:12 PM, trader_4 wrote:

They first started appearing in 1961 and were mandatory for 1968 model
year cars.


Mostly as an option but my '62 Corvair had the attachments in place and
it was mandatory to have them. Made it asy to put a set of belts in.
Lap only, no chest yet.




In my opinion, seatbelts are just revenue makers for law enforcement.