Carbon monoxide: the cause for alarm

Thank you for your comments. Just to let you know that smoke alarms not wired in also have an expiry date and should be replaced accordingly.

Hi Avril – I have moved house recently and bought some new battery operated alarms because the house has only a couple of interlinked mains alarms in the hall and on the landing. The ten year life ones with non-replaceable batteries have a place to record the installation date whereas the ones that take replaceable batteries have no expiry date. My research suggests that (ionisation type) smoke alarms with replaceable batteries can continue to work for many years, though I’m not advocating this. In my previous house I had 1980 alarms in two rooms in addition to newer ones. Out of interest, I took them into the kitchen and did a toast test and they were just as sensitive as the new ones. On the other hand, it is well documented that carbon monoxide alarms must be replaced by the expiry date.

Old carbon dioxide alarms can be disposed of as electronic waste at a recycling centre but ionisation smoke alarms contain a small amount of radioactivity and should be handed to a member of staff.

Best of luck with your campaign.

Hi again, Avril – I have now seen a battery-operated smoke alarm with an expiry date, as you mentioned. I presume this is a recent change.

You know Wavechange I can go to American websites and US consumer associations and get highly detailed tech info on CO2 detectors with country of origin in a lot of cases -US products notably higher priced and industrial ones and yet over here its like secret service you just get sales patter as to best buys but technical details on a US scale are sadly lacking. I just dont get the secrecy here .

In the Which? report it is the cheap carbon monoxide (CO nor CO2) alarms that performed poorly, so in this case you are getting what you pay for. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable that any substandard ones are available. Independent testing is needed before safety devices are put on sale.

Hopefully Which? might consider making the report on carbon monoxide alarms publicly available. I hope that other subscribers would support this.

Would a Canary be any good, Wavechange?

Maybe, but an alarm that stops sounding when there is danger is not the best choice. Birds have a faster rate of metabolism than humans so are give an early warning of gas. I presume canaries were used in mines because they are small.

Before other chemical and electronic means of detecting poisonous gases became available Canaries were the only reliable means of warning of a gas outbreak, admittedly by ceasing to make any sound and possibly expiring, so they always had to have a child minding the Canary to sound a more audible alarm if the Canary started to falter. Interestingly, it is still a legal requirement in the UK for every working mine to have a Canary at the bottom of the pit while any mining is being carried out. The first Labour leader Keir Hardie started work at a colliery at the age of seven and might well have been a Canary-minder as soon as he reached the age of ten when young boys were allowed to work underground. I raise these points in response to an enquiry from my little Norwegian Blue friend Eccles [pictured left].

I hope Avril does not mind a bit of levity but it might encourage some more input.

It is important that people understand the dangers of carbon monoxide. It does not kill instantly, but gradually reduces the capacity haemoglobin in the blood to provide the body with sufficient oxygen. There is little danger in entering a room, opening the windows and helping conscious occupants move away from whatever is producing the invisible, toxic gas. Moving a barbecue into a confined space such as a tent is very dangerous.

I try and avoid the local pub on quiz night but might suggest the ongoing requirement for canaries in mines as the basis of a quiz question. Incidentally, you previously mentioned Eccles in a Convo on 17 September 2015, according to a well known search engine.

Good point, Sophie. After we have quit the EU we should not compromise on safety standards and we should adopt any EU standards that are superior to our own. In would be in the interests of UK manufacturers to be able to market their products in other European countries and elsewhere in the world with EU compliance.

Prompted by this Convo I have bought an fitted a long-life smoke alarm (a Which? Best Buy) to replace an old one in the dining room. After a day of hearing it bleeping every minute, I have temporarily reinstated the old one. I wonder how good the quality control of these alarms is.

Thats a fair point, Patrick. Battery life is important. I will hold my hand up to having taken the battery out of a smoke alarm when it has started bleeping in the middle of the night to announce that the battery needs replaced. (I’m not unduly concerned because I have more alarms than rooms.) The fire services have reported that many homes have alarms fitted but not in use. Nuisance alarms, low batteries and batteries borrowed for use in kids’ toys are among the reasons. I have one smoke alarm that has a plastic arm that prevents installation on the backing plate unless a battery is fitted, which seems a good feature.

wavechange – You have identified the major problem with the Which? Best Buy system. If Fire Angel acquires a Best Buy licence [up to £30,000 a year] it can legitimately advertise heavily the one that passed.

The problem is that in the public’s mind the “brand ” is what is remembered.

Because of the aura effect the US Consumer Reports charity forbids the use of their ratings in adverts. As you can understand Fire Angel can take great , but dangerous, advantage of the Best Buy tag.

The Standard gives very specific and comprehensive tests for a device to react to different concentrations of CO under different circumstances. A product that has an appropriate national mark must also be licensed to an international quality control system that is also audited. Should procedures and products fail to meet these standards action is taken and in appropriate cases the product licence can be withdrawn. No reputable manufacturer would, I believe, want to jeopardise their business in this way.

Although Which? don’t mention the laboratory (a “secret” that need not be) nor the test regime from the bit they publish I assume they test to BS EN 50291-1. They should. All reputable models tested were best buys. I did not see a “dont buy” among them. “Don’t buys” does not necessarily imply a product fails to meet an appropriate International Standard. Perhaps you have found a smoke alarm that did not; I haven’t looked.

Manufacturers products would be independently type tested to gain a licence, should be tested in manufacture as part of their licence and the licensing authority (such as BSI) carry out audits and tests. You cannot independently test every appliance sold. Should doubts be raised as to whether a claim to meet a Standard is not justified the licensing authority should be informed. I hope Which? do this where necessary. Standard have kept European consumers far safer for decades than would otherwise be the case.

As I said, I was referring to smoke alarms which, like carbon monoxide alarms, can save lives.

Of course it is possible to independently test representative samples of these products (not every item that is sold). That should be a condition of granting a licence. As I have suggested, claims by Which? or other organisations need to be independently vetted.

I disagree with Which? using its name to endorse products through advertising. As you say, Patrick, the Manufacturer’s name is remembered probably more than the product. As Which?’s testing is limited – it does not properly test for durability, quality of construction, repairability for example – it can mislead. It seems only to be done for monetary gain and there is always the feeling that maintaining the income stream might be influential in its decisions.

I would like to see Which?, and its name, totally independent of any other commercial concerns. It has a huge role to fulfill in protecting consumers that should remain visibly free from any other influences. It won’t happen, I accept.

My earlier post may have been missed by you, but I thought I explained the points you raise.

I explained that a condition of giving a product license was independent testing by an accredited test house. That is the basis of the licensing process.

Substantiated claims by Which? for example, if they have tested properly, that show product failure to meet a standard should be referred, as I also explained above.

Did you find a smoke alarm that did not meet the International Standard that was supplied from a legitimate source of a reputable brand? A “don’t buy” does not necessarily mean failure to meet a safety standard.

To repeat what I said about two FireAngel smoke alarms: “it failed to go off in the times required by the British Standard when exposed to a common type of house fire.” I trust that Which? has had these tested to the standard, but we have not been told.

How would I know if I bought an alarm that did not meet a standard? It seems a daft question, but I may have missed something. 🙂 I once read a report in the Which? magazine that informed me that one of my existing ionisation smoke alarms (a well known brand, bought in B&Q) underperformed. A phone number was provided and I received a replacement cover with more or larger holes in it. I do appreciate that a standard defines minimum requirements. I expect that many will be familiar with the description ‘meets or exceeds the appropriate standards’ in product descriptions.

“How would I know if I bought an alarm that did not meet a standard?” A product meeting, and certified to, an international standard will have the standard number and the national mark (such as the Kitemark) on the literature and be marked on the product. However, any product marketed in the EU must be CE marked which indicates compliance with the appropriate standard. Products not meeting the standard should be reported to the national body that deals with this – presumably Trading Standards in the UK who are responsible for enforcement.

It was certainly had the relevant markings. I remember comparing this alarm with other smoke alarms. My question was about alarms that do not meet the standard even when they are marked as compliant.

I’ve given my view on this above.

I think where we are dealing with safety products there needs to be a much more stringent regime.

It is not a Best Buy situation at all. It might be if ALL the alarms made by a company ALL passed it was made possible they get an award for that.

On a more safety conscious note I would suggest that only a restricted number of outlets are allowed to market and sell safety alarms. It is to serious a matter to be left to the Amazon and eBay marketplace.

Paid to the fire service, shops or charities that pay a bond or guarantee never to sell anything substandard.

This could also mean the clever design features like the need for a live battery to be in place before it can be fitted, as alluded to by another poster.

Essentially we still have unanswered the insurance industry/companies policy on leaving electrical appliances running, and this thread where how many tens of thousands of ropey CO alarms are lurking in houses courtesy of Amazon and eBay remains unanswered.

There are some interesting suggestions that could be debated. The main thing is that the safety of consumers is paramount.

Patrick – I was hoping to come back to the insurance issues when I get some more time because I think the whole question needs exploring in more depth and insurance company claims policies perhaps need to be challenged.

I am also wondering what checks and tests the fire services do on the smoke alarms they install for people. Are they fitting a fully compliant product, or do they just think they are? It would be useful if correspondents here who have had them fitted by their local brigade could tell us, if they are able to, which make and model was fitted -an instruction leaflet should have been handed over with each installation and this will give the relevant details. Is this a free service for anybody, or are there criteria to fulfill? I am not aware of the way the scheme works.

A battery tray with fixed connectors is better, I assure you. I have never had a problem unless there has been leakage causing corrosion of the connections. My interlinked mains smoke alarms installed when the house was built 18 years ago use this design, but some manufacturers are still using the inferior snap on connectors. Alarms with long-life non replaceable batteries are becoming more common, which will mean no more dodgy connections. EverReady did produce a PP3-style battery with a superior terminal clip (the negative terminal had two opposing prongs rather than the usual circular design), but this disappeared again, presumably because compatibility issues were discovered.

The way I test my smoke and carbon monoxide alarms is to use a stick to press the button. If you have a pole to access a loft ladder, that might do the job. The bonus is that it is kinder on the ears when the alarm is at a distance. A stick can also be used to press the silence button that temporarily mutes some alarms if set off by cooking. It’s not so easy to use a stick if you have high ceilings.

At least one company produced smoke alarms with a ‘torch test’ feature. I presume that instead of climbing up or playing with sticks, you pointed a torch at the alarm to test it. I am not sure how well these worked or if they are still available.

I wonder how many people have injured themselves testing their alarms or not tested them often enough because it’s too much hassle. Perhaps the companies that make the alarms could give some thought to finding a a solution.

If you have kids, ask to borrow their selfie stick. 🙂

Carbon monoxide is actually slightly less dense than air. If you put a carbon monoxide alarm at a low level it could get dirty or damaged. As you say, you should check the instructions provided.

I agree Wavechange and would suggest that you also post that comment on the main Whirlpool Conversation [or perhaps I have missed it].

Thank you John. 🙂 I must concentrate and try to post in the relevant Convo.

I’ve just had a quick look at Amazon.co.uk and there a quite a few cheap detectors still there that look identical to the dangerous types listed in the report.

It looks as if ‘Lifesaver’ is just a brand that is or was used by Kidde. From a retailer’s website:
“Product Information
About the Kidde 5CO:
The Kidde 5CO is part of Kidde’s Lifesaver Brand offering continuous monitoring against the potential dangers of Carbon Monoxide.”

Not me, Duncan. We live in Norfolk where the air is good [except in Norwich which suffers from high pollution levels in the city centre, a lot of it coming from buses and taxis that have exclusive use of certain streets].

The smogs in London used to be thick and yellow suggesting a high sulphur content. There were many deaths and illnesses caused by the London smogs. We get thick mists in certain low-lying areas that make driving hazardous but they are not fume-laden.

The Mayors of London after Ken Livingstone haven’t done much to relieve London of pollution except some new buses and taxis with lower emissions. Boris Johnson even cancelled the extension of the Congestion Zone because it was going to interfere with the lifestyles of the residents of Kensington and Knightsbridge. And Mayor Khan seems hell-bent on filling every square centimetre of London and its environs with more development leading to more commuting and more traffic.

I can’t believe that the proliferation of air conditioning isn’t having a harmful effect on the atmosphere, and not just from the production of electricity that is required to operate it but from the hot air and its contents that is exhausted from buildings. Climate change? – We’re in it.

Nitrogen oxide levels frequently exceed limits in parts of London. Most is due to motor vehicles. How ever much we try to reduce engine emissions in my view only by restricting the volume of traffic, particularly at peak times, can we hope to improve air quality to acceptable levels. Who will be brave enough to do that?