Yesterday while cooking I set off the smoke detector, no I did not burn anything. They go off when I cook over a high heat. And yesterday once they started going off they would not stop. I ended up having to disconnect them all (they are hard wired with an interconnect) and I replaced them this morning. Aaaaaaaand let me tell you, I had a sleepless night last night knowing there were no detectors installed.

https://www.southernliving.com/how-often-should-you-replace-smoke-detectors-8774122

top 83 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 26 points 8 months ago (12 children)

They make ones now with an internal battery that lasts 10 years. No more chirping and swapping 9V batteries.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    It sucks ass. I've gone through about 5 of them well short of 10 years. I do see that this brand released a new version, but this is the one I had. Absolute garbage. They kept giving false positives, and they have no replaceable batteries so they just become E-waste after you disable them. This is the one I had.

    https://www.homedepot.com/pep/Kidde-10-Year-Worry-Free-Battery-Smoke-and-Carbon-Monoxide-Detector-Photoelectric-Sensor-3-Pack-21029899-3-21029899-3/203534175?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    You know those have a 10 year warranty right? Including the specific model you linked.

    https://www.kidde.com/warranty-information

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    How many ~$25 items do you fill out a warranty claim for? Mine went into the bin and I got another.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago

    Not many, but I don't buy a lot of $25 products in this day and age. Sometimes electronics fail early, that's why there's a warranty. I also don't go complaining about something when it would have been replaced by warranty either.

    The fact they warrant the devices through their entire expected lifespan instead of only a year is notable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    I’ve had the same problem with them. I don’t recommend them either.

    Even if they do have a warranty, they aren’t reliable enough to be worth doing the warranty claim on, imho.

    I’ve gone back to the old battery style and gotten some rechargeable 9 volt.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

    In fact, smoke alarms with user-replaceable batteries became illegal in Scotland a couple of years ago.

    Still waiting to see if the same regulation gets applied across the entire UK, but anecdotally I’ve noticed it’s already much harder to find anything other than 10-year battery or hardwired models in my part of England.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    What's the reason behind that legislation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago*

    Safety. What else?

    You can see a news report from when it came into force here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-60203081

    The guidance is here: https://www.gov.scot/publications/fire-and-smoke-alarms-in-scottish-homes/pages/where-and-what-to-buy/

    Which includes this part on batteries:

    Replaceable batteries cannot be used because the sensors in the alarm degrade over time and so will not be able to detect heat or smoke. This is why the alarm has a limited lifespan.  Sealed, tamper-proof battery units must be used because they are safer than those which allow the user to change the batteries.   

    There have been several tragedies over the years where alarms failed because their batteries expired, or people have removed them. Any alarm you buy will have information on how long it lasts, which can be up to 10 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Reminds me of this, couldn't find the OG image unfortunately.

    Hate it when people overlay unnecessary text, I guess it's for the simpletons

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    You should know I passive aggressively want to die.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago

    You're supposed to test them fairly regularly.

    I get that monthly might be a pain, but once or twice a year is probably smart, for safety equipment.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Don’t they all do that now? Tell you when they’ve expired?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Maybe, if it is made past a certain date. Mine in the image, from 2005, did not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Admittedly I did similar. At one point I had a non-working detector and noticed it was long expired when I tried to replace the battery. I realized I had been in my house more than ten years and the detectors had been installed by a previous owner, probably in the early 2000’s. Those did NOT beep when they expired

    When I replaced those, the new ones were all configured to beep when expired and they were starting to push the sealed detectors with ten year non-replaceable battery. Sure enough, ten years later they all started beeping that they were expired.

    I guess I assumed that it’s been 20 years and most people will have replaced detectors at least once. In my state, there’s a required inspection that all detectors are up to date before a house can be sold

    (Which is really annoying because mine are all battery but the current standard is they must interconnect so I’ll need some electrical work if I want to sell my house)

  • source
  • parent
  • Yes.

    Not only that, the current generation of smoke detectors have sealed batteries so you can't even open them up to change batteries or anything. So once they expire in 10 years they start their incessant "I'm dying" non-stop beeping - that's when you dispose of the entire smoke detector and buy a new one.

    I've read that they don't detect smoke as well after 10 years anyway (e.g. even more false alarms) so it's probably for the best to get rid of old ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    I'm not betraying a hard worker like that, they've shown up for work everyday for 7-10 years and you think I would replace them with some young'n?

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    Aaaaaaaand let me tell you, I had a sleepless night last night knowing there were no detectors installed.

    This seems really weird. Smoke detectors are important, but the odds of a fire any given night are incredibly low. To me, replacing a detector would be a chore I'd get to within a week, and I definitely wouldn't lose sleep over it.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Ours were just replaced in our rental house. They were last replaced in 2004 and our corpo landlord just doesn't give a fuck.

    I don't think our dryer vent has been cleaned in a decade. This place is a fire trap.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Found out my dryer vent duct was disconnected on both ends. I wouldn't be surprised 🤷

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago

    I've warned them about this and our gutters rotting away the wood on our patio and they told me both were tenant's responsibility, despite a whole section on their website saying otherwise.

    I couldn't give a fuck less about this house. I close on my first HOME next week!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 80 points 8 months ago (18 children)

    This is only true for the Americium based smoke detectors. The newer photoelectric cell fire detectors don't decay like Americium detectors, and as long as you replace the battery it'll be good for however long it's internal components (capacitors and whatnot) will last.

    Technology Connections has a good video about this subject:

    https://youtu.be/DuAeaIcAXtg

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    The half life for americium 241 is like 450 years. The 10 year replacement has nothing to do with decay. It's just a non specific safety in case any of the electronics or board etc start to fail. Photoelectric detectors have the same 10 year recommendation as a max.

    It's actually recommend by many organizations (like the NFPA) to replace photoelectric detectors more often than ionization detectors, if anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    It's tuned to a specific output and isn't exactly field adjustable. Certainly it will continue to be radioactive long after you're dead, but that doesn't mean it will still be working properly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    I know exactly how they work. I'm a firefighter and a hazmat technician. Plus I work on and repair electronics as a hobby. Your smoke detector failing after 10 or 30 years has zero to do with radioactive decay. It's from contamination (dust) and sensor degradation. Once the metal plates inside get enough buildup from dust (like smoke dust and regular dust) and contamination from humidity, the charge that's supposed to be detected between those plates from the ionization stays lower all the time. That means less actual "smoke" is needed to drop it below the threshold. This happens MUCH faster than radioactive decay reducing what it will ionize.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    This is anecdotical but I moved into an apartment with a 30 year old ionizing smoke detector, and the failure was it was too sensitive, I assume because there were less electrons being emitted from the radioactive element, any faint smoke caused it to go off. Eventually it got into a state where it would always be in an alert state, and was beeping 100% of the time, which was when the landlord finally replaced it.

    My assumption with the 10 year replacement recommendation for Americium based smoke detectors is to replace it before it becomes too sensitive and annoying, because they were worried some people would remove the battery and just live without an active smoke detector.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    There's no radiation drop after just 30 years from americium 241. It has a 450 year half life. After decades electric components start to fail and\or things get dirty. After 30 years of getting smoke in it, there was probably a layer of dust\smoke over where the radiation is at that were blocking some of the radiation all the time, that made it more sensitive.

    Same issues will happen with photoelectric detectors. It's recommended to replace both types after no longer than 10 years. I have no idea where the person you responded to got the information about them not needing replaced as often as ionization detectors. If anything, it's actually the opposite.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago* (4 children)

    Alec in his own video mentions that the issue isn't that the Americium decays, but that the electronics themselves age and fail, which applies to both the ionization detectors and photoelectric detectors.

    This is one of the things you just don't wanna mess with, as such a failure is completely unpredictable, and from what I know some manufacturers are even beginning to make detector units with non-replaceable batteries, intended to be replaced whole when the battery dies after years of runtime, to make it impossible to keep using a detector after its rated lifetime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    I know some manufacturers are even beginning to make detector units with non-replaceable batteries, intended to be replaced whole when the battery dies after years of runtime, to make it impossible to keep using a detector after its rated lifetime.

    I'm sure that's the reason say they do it, but that smells like standard corporate planned obsolescence and profit seeking with a great PR team.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Yes, but no. You really should replace your detectors every decade. They will likely work perfectly for twice that, but is it worth the risk over like $100 in smoke detectors?

    So it does sort of force you to replace it after a decade, but you should anyhow.

    It's also well worth it, because getting on a chair or ladder and buying new overpriced 9v batteries every year (if you're all proper about changing them) is a pain in the ass compared to once a decade. The more of a pain it is to get to your detectors, the more a 10 year one becomes worth it.

    You're supposed to hit your test button once a month to check their functions, but I dont think anyone anywhere actually does that. If they tell me they do I'll just assume they're a liar.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    I am an engineer and it's just legitimately hard to build any kind of sensor that lasts and stays accurate longer than like 10 years especially without maintenance. They do intentionally design them so that they don't last longer, but that's because a design that would last longer would costs like 10x as much and require a lot of maintenance and calibration that your average homeowner is simply not going to do. It's honestly surprising you can make an accurate smoke detector that even lasts 10 years as cheap as they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    I was about to link to the same video. From what I remember though both types have strength and weaknesses in regards to the type of fire.

    Edit: watched it again so ionization smoke detectors are better at detecting active fire, although his conclusion is that the benefit is not as big and overall photoelectric ones are better.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    And if you live for rent, at least over here in Germany your landlords are obliged to replace them regularly, but like you say that just means they'll replace them with previous ones that have been checked and had batteries replaced.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    A motion to rename every element that's named after a place. All in favor updoot, all opposed downdoot

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Mine expired and decided to sing me the song of their people at 4am.

    That was an exciting night, I'll tell you that...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    If you live in a state that observes time changes you should get in the habit of checking them on that day. It means you check them twice a year and you’ll be mindful of the expiration date.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    Living in a country where smoke detectors basically don't exist and house fires are extremely rare (rare, not nonexistent, we had a pretty terrible fire in a bar on silvester) I always wonder if we are just stupid for not having them or why there are so many in places like the USA.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    I'd say stupid. I live in a country where most houses are brick walls + concrete floors, and smoke detectors are still common + since a few years also mandated by the government.

    The government mandate came after it was found that of the dozens of people that died every year from house fires, 95% suffocated in their sleep.

    Some numbers for my region: ~7m population, 70% of houses had smoke detection before the mandate, on average 63 died per year from house fires.

    Some incorrect approximative math: Lets assume that the amount of dead could have been halved if those 30% houses had 2 smoke detectors per person (lets say 2 cheap ones for 2x20 euros per 10 years): 7m x 0.3 x 2 x 20€ /10 /63 x2 = a cost of 267€ per year per life saved. Imo that's a no brainer, it'd be stupid to not invest in smoke detection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    We had 0.2 deaths / 100k population but I feel stupid for not having one. You are right, they cost basically nothing for some piece of mind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Plus new smoke detectors are usually also carbon monoxide detectors. So you get twice the peace of mind, cause carbon monoxide is a silent killer. It has no color, no odor, no warning signs at all. It's happened where a whole family goes to bed and doesn't wake up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    That we actually have. Our apartment has ventilation (not sure if that is the right word, it replaces the air continuous with fresh air from the outside) and integrated into that system is a carbon monoxide detector.

    What is even crazier in my opinion is that you can get poisened by smoke while sleeping as you usually don't smell smoke during sleep.

    I guess I'll get some of those 20 buck ones, they just need to spot something burning.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Other countries use less flammable materials in their construction. Wood frame construction is very common in the US due to drastically lower cost of wood vs block. We also had something called balloon frame construction for many years which made it much more likely for fire to travel within the walls. That being said not having detectors isn't a great idea either since most are combo smoke and carbon monoxide detectors.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    combo smoke and carbon monoxide detectors

    In Mexico/central america they don't shut the windows with the heater on like we do in the cold north.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago*

    True but even gas stoves, clothes driers, water heaters etc can produce lethal levels of carbon monoxide if not properly (or have clogged) venting. And ounce of prevention is better than a 6 foot hole.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    It's also important to date the new ones when activated, so that they can be replaced at the appropriate time 10yrs from now, even if it's not you doing it.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    This is why I just go ahead and buy the new ones that come with batteries that last 10 years. You'll have to replace the whole unit when they die anyway.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    This is the strat. They aren't even any more expensive than a "cheap" smoke detector once you factor in the cost of batteries (not to mention the cost of all the sleepless nights when the infernal thing is beeping because the battery is low)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    that’s my landlord’s problem 😎

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    nice try, big detector

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    I replace 'em every other fire.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I don't even have smoke detectors. lol

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    If your smoke detectors go off when you are cooking, then the smoke detectors are too close to the kitchen. At least where I live, building code mandates one smoke detector in each bedroom, one in each hallway leading to a bedroom, and at least one smoke detector on each floor of the home. Generally, avoid placing smoke detectors near kitchens or exterior windows which, when open, are right next to a grill or other cooking appliance. Otherwise you're going to be getting a lot of false positives.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 8 months ago

    The closest detector to the kitchen was in a bed room.

    There had been a different detector in the living room but had gotten knocked down a while ago and broke (and never replaced), it was not on the interlink system, and when the other detectors would go off while cooking the one in the living room would not.

    As you can see from my image, the detectors I replaced were from 2005, and needed replacing for quite some time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago

    You mean those things that make noise when I don't want them to?

    Yeah, I removed the batteries.

    Dying from smoke inhalation in my sleep sounds like one of the easier ways to go.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    If you're not living in USA-land you're probably fine to simply change the battery every few years because you've got a photoelectric smoke detector.

    Ionization based smoke detectors (that require changing because radioactive...) are more unsafe and usually only allowed in special cases in non third world countries like the EU.

    Oh and you also can't just throw them into the trash because you know radioactivity... except in USA-land...

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    Photoelectric smoke detectors also need to be replaced every ten years or so, and the radioactivity of ionization alarms is well within safe levels as long as you aren't taking them apart to eat the ^241^Am. They're sensitive to different things but the photoelectric ones are probably better suited to modern home fires (but they're more prone to false-positives from kitchen smoke).

    Pointless America Bad and radiation fear-mongering.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›