3 ms·

The actual law is "Do what UL says". Or, to use a direct quote: "The U.S. model codes and installation standards require smoke alarms and smoke detectors to be

by raldi 12y ago

The actual law is "Do what UL says". Or, to use a direct quote: "The U.S. model codes and installation standards require smoke alarms and smoke detectors to be listed in accordance with the Standard for Single- and Multiple-Station Smoke Alarms, UL 217, and the Standard for Smoke Detectors for Fire Alarm Signaling Systems, UL 268." http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/firelifesafety/pdf/Smoke%20Alarm%20Task%20Force/CSFM%20SATF%20Report%208-16-11.pdf http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/firelifesafety/pdf/Smoke%20Alarm%20T...

CamperBob2 12y ago
I'm missing the part that justifies what we see in that video. He's unable to mute the detectors, but there seems to be a distinct lack of smoke. Why are people carrying water for this idiocy? Nothing in the document you linked has anything to do with the subject at hand. Fine, whatever, you're not supposed to be able to mute the detector in the presence of heavy smoke. But there is absolutely no prohibition against a mute feature in general.
- raldi 12y ago
  I found a citation that I think even you will accept: https://community.nest.com/message/36003 https://community.nest.com/message/36003
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    True, and the 4% business was also mentioned in the summary document earlier. That doesn't change my two underlying points: (1) it's an incredibly stupid regulation that seems to have been designed to cause people to remove the battery or otherwise disable their smoke detectors permanently to avoid nuisance alarms; and (2) there was no smoke at any level in this scenario. Poor engineering on Nest's part led to a situation where a poorly-thought-out regulation came into play. Neither condition is defensible... yet look at all of the people in this thread trying to defend one or both. (Yes, I'm moving the goalposts to a certain extent, as I was mistaken about there being no law against silencing a smoke detector in the general case.)
    - raldi 12y ago
      Worse, municipalities are starting to pass stricter code, requiring the battery to be unremovable: http://rules.cityofnewyork.us/tags/smoke-alarm http://rules.cityofnewyork.us/tags/smoke-alarm

by raldi 12y ago

CamperBob2 12y ago

I'm missing the part that justifies what we see in that video. He's unable to mute the detectors, but there seems to be a distinct lack of smoke. Why are people carrying water for this idiocy? Nothing in the document you linked has anything to do with the subject at hand. Fine, whatever, you're not supposed to be able to mute the detector in the presence of heavy smoke. But there is absolutely no prohibition against a mute feature in general.

raldi 12y ago
I found a citation that I think even you will accept: https://community.nest.com/message/36003 https://community.nest.com/message/36003
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  True, and the 4% business was also mentioned in the summary document earlier. That doesn't change my two underlying points: (1) it's an incredibly stupid regulation that seems to have been designed to cause people to remove the battery or otherwise disable their smoke detectors permanently to avoid nuisance alarms; and (2) there was no smoke at any level in this scenario. Poor engineering on Nest's part led to a situation where a poorly-thought-out regulation came into play. Neither condition is defensible... yet look at all of the people in this thread trying to defend one or both. (Yes, I'm moving the goalposts to a certain extent, as I was mistaken about there being no law against silencing a smoke detector in the general case.)
  - raldi 12y ago
    Worse, municipalities are starting to pass stricter code, requiring the battery to be unremovable: http://rules.cityofnewyork.us/tags/smoke-alarm http://rules.cityofnewyork.us/tags/smoke-alarm