CO Detectors may be required soon

Pat Clark

The following news item shows that sometimes our state government can actually do something!!


JUNEAU -- Carbon monoxide detectors would be required in most Alaska homes under a bill that passed the House on Wednesday.

Rep. Carl Gatto, R-Palmer, said the requirement could save lives and protect children whose developing brains can be damaged by continuous exposure to even low levels of the gas.

The mandate would work similarly to an existing requirement that homes have smoke detectors. In rental homes, landlords would have to install the detectors, and tenants would be responsible for replacing batteries if needed and making sure the detectors are working.

Gatto said carbon monoxide poisoning kills 1,500-2,000 people a year in the United States and sends 10,000 to the hospital. In Anchorage last December, a family of five died from inhaling the poisonous gas.

"It's the kind of killer that people are very unsuspecting of," Gatto said.

Carbon monoxide is an invisible gas with no odor or taste that results from an incomplete combustion of natural gas and other materials containing carbon, such as gasoline, kerosene, oil, propane, coal or wood.

It can cause severe headaches, nausea, confusion and death if inhaled for extended periods.

A person suffering carbon monoxide poisoning could wake up with a splitting headache and nausea, then go back to sleep, never to wake again, Gatto said.

"This is a very clever little killer," he said.

Rep. Kelly Wolf, R-Kenai, argued against the bill, saying he does not believe it's the government's job to make people install the devices.

"I'm really concerned about creating a knock-and-talk carbon monoxide police force in the state of Alaska," Wolf said.

He worried that people with fish shacks and remote cabins would run afoul of the law. And, he said, he doesn't think the state intends to enforce it.

Rep. Max Gruenberg, D-Anchorage, who sponsored the bill with Gatto, said the intent is not to turn people into criminals but to save lives by prompting people to install the detectors.

Not having a carbon monoxide detector would be a violation similar to a traffic ticket that could result in a fine but not jail time.

The bill would mandate the detectors in homes where carbon-based fuels, such as gas or wood, are used. It would also apply to homes next to a parking space or with attached garages or carports.

The measure passed 32-6. Voting against it were Wolf; John Coghill, R-North Pole; Bill Stoltze, R-Chugiak; Beverly Masek, R-Willow; Vic Kohring, R-Wasilla; and Jim Holm, R-Fairbanks.

The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.

John R. Hall

\"...knock-and-talk carbon monoxide police force...\"

Huh? What does that mean? Sounds like political gobbledygook to me.

Constantin

Sounds like grandstanding to me...

As long as residential CO detectors are built as shoddily as we've read here and elsewhere on the net, I see no benefit from installing them by mandate in many homes. First, the industry has to police itself better by producing CO detectors that:

• Warn of dangerous conditions - i.e. do not have a nuisance cutoff that is above unsafe levels for long-term exposure.
• That offer an expiration date to reflect the decay of the sensor. It would be trivial to implement a detector that self-expires, for example.
• That have an internal test cycle that actually tests the sensor, not just the electronics.

I have CO detectors in the house. However, what government regulation I really want in this case is a CO detector that actually works as such. There is no point in having useless gizmos hanging from walls giving you a false sense of security. Lastly, I would prefer a law on the books that requires politicians to remove one law from the books for every new law they pass.

Pat Clark

Saving Lives

Although I agree with you that detectors need to be better, waiting until then to provide a safer living space will only cost more lives. If requiring all homes to have CO detectors installed saves just 1 life, then it is well worth it. Detectors alone will never accomplish 100% safety, but public awareness and education together with a good detector will go a long way to preventing unnecessary deaths due to CO. We had a family of 4 die tragically due to CO here in Anchorage this past year, and this legislation is part of a knee jerk reaction to that tragedy. Does that make it less important? Our city is a lot more aware now of CO dangers than before and that is good.

CO detectors today are much better than they were when they first came out years ago. Again, it would be nice if they were better, but they are getting there.

We check for CO on every service call, even if it is just plumbing.

I wonder if CO detectors were manditory everywhere, how many posts would Mark Hunt be finding to post here. I'm guessing there would be fewer, which means someones friends or loved ones would still be with us. Solving large problems usually comes in small steps, waiting for the ideal solution often results in no solution.

just my 2 cents worth

Pat

BillW@honeywell

In New Jersey...

they are already required for new construction, and will be checked for in existing homes when a house is sold, or when a permit is pulled for other work and that work is inspected.

John R. Hall

Death doesn't wait

I know all about the arguments for CO detectors that alarm at low ppm's as opposed to those approved by the current UL standard. But this is a tired old argument. ANY CO detector in a home is better than no CO detector. Does it mean a false sense of security? Sure it does -- but what is the alternative? Constant debate on the subject does not save lives today. Yes, we need a new standard for CO detectors but since one is not forthcoming, let's save lives now. Call it government meddling if you like but I call it a step in the right direction.

Walk in the shoes of family and friends who have lost a loved one to CO poisoning. Two of my friends died from it.

Ken D.

CO Detectors

The CO detectors are cheap enough to buy that there is no excuse not to have one. Too many deaths occur each year not to mention the people who have died from it and it was attributed to something else. They said the same thing about smoke detectors 30 years ago.

Constantin

Hold on!

I hope no one inferred that I'm against CO detectors! They should be used, no question. As much as I hate regulation, I feel that if the industry cannot self-regulate itself to produce effective, safe detectors, that the government should do it for them.

For instance, how quickly do you think quality would improve if the government mandated jail time for MBA's in pinstripe suits for knowingly producing CO detectors that failed 40% of the time barely after installation? Should I be expected to install 3 smoke detectors from different manufacturers at every CO location in my home just to have a 80% chance of detecting UL-spec levels of CO? (Do the math, do you feel lucky?)

Nevermind the ongoing decay of such sensors as a function of time. As I pointed out earlier, it would be trivial to add a warning timer to CO-detectors to let users know that the useful life is up (the same way they do with low battery power)... yet why don't the manufacturers do it? Because it costs money and the focus is on glitzy marketing, not substance.

Under these circumstances, the only thing to do is to keep combustion outside the indoor air envelope. That's why I'm going with a sealed heating system. Yes, the kitchen is still a vulnerability (dual-fuel range), but one I will have to live with... and awaiting the day that the scoundrels who sell snake oil to consumers get a condo at the local county jail.

Constantin

There is a difference though.

Smoke detectors did not "feature" a 40% failure rate after installation.

Granted, the smoke detector technology may be simpler (photocell and/or ionization via radiation) but there is no reason to sell a product you know does not protect its buyers from dangerous levels of CO 40% of the time. Under said circumstances, I would either improve the performance of CO detectors until they either warn of unsafe levels (coexperts, etc.) or I concluded that it couldn't be done and stopped development.

Furthermore, writing a UL standard for my own convenience is the sort of thing I expect from the likes of Enron, not ethical businesses. If the industry has cleaned up its act since the GRI and other posted reports, I'd love to hear about it. In the meantime, I'll spec a set of coexperts units for the house.

Mark Hunt

CO detectors

Constantin is correct. The UL approved CO alarms are just about useless. I said "just about" not completely.

IF they work, they will protect a middle-aged healthy adult from acute poisoning. They offer no protection for children and the elderly, and no protection from CHRONIC CO exposure for anyone.

Those detectors can be set off by a variety of chemicals too great to list here, while the CO Experts will only respond to CO and at much lower levels.

Changing the UL standard is another battle.

CO Experts alarms are available to contractors only. This is due to the sensitivity of the device. Knowing what to do if the alarm indicates a small level of CO is very important. If a homeowner calls 911 and reports 10ppm of CO, they will probably be told not to worry. Knowing WHY there are 10ppm in a home is important, but emergency response teams are not the ones to determine that. Trained contractors are. While 10ppm is not lethal to adults, it may be for small children, I.E., S.I.D.S. Chronic or repeated exposure to low levels of CO can be devastating and it is misdiagnosed 99% of the time.

Smoke alarms protect you mainly when you're asleep, as your sense of smell shuts down then. If a smoke alarm goes off while you're awake, you can probably figure out why. I used to kid my wife that the smoke alarm let her know when dinner was done!

CO is different. I have entered homes where people were being poisoned and they had no idea.

AprilAire offers a CO alarm test kit. Basically just CO in a can and a plastic bag to put over the alarm. The CO is not very concentrated, probably about 400ppm, but if all you have is a UL listed device it is worth getting the gas to test it.

There.......I said the word........TEST.

Contractors should be the front line defense against a CO incident. They need to be trained and they need to apply that training everyday in every home. They also need to educate their customers about CO. Consumers also need to educate themselves about the products they purchase.

My advice is to comply with the law, but there is no law that says you can't protect yourself further. Find a contractor that has been trained and understands CO. Get a CO Experts detector from them and make sure you understand how it will work and what to do if it displays or alarms.

We're moving forward, albeit slowly, but the wheels have been set in motion and a change is coming.

Stay safe.

Mark H

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"