JasonS Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 ***Hi guys, This is Isaac Peck, Editor/Marketing Coordinator here at Working RE - I'm supervising Jason, an intern here who I had instructed to share our most recent story on this forum. His approach was obviously not the best, but I hope you can cut him some slack. He does work for Working RE, AND it is a good story! Let us know your thoughts. -Isaac Peck*** Working RE: Silent Sentries - Understanding Smoke Alarms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Fabry Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 jason- if you're going to drop a link, don't be so cheesy. Man up, say you work at RE magazine and suggest we read the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Raymond Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 That's one of our sponsors' rag. He should just post it. His boss's cheddar keeps the lights on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Moore Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 jason- if you're going to drop a link, don't be so cheesy. Man up, say you work at RE magazine and suggest we read the article. Jason lists Real Estate as a hobby in his profile. So, wouldn't it be perfectly natural to post a link to an insurance agency's promotional newsletter on a home inspector site that coincidentally happens to cater to a customer base of that agency? He even joined today just so he could do that. What a guy! "While searching for a little more clarity I found this article..." Cough...BullS**t! OREP may be a site sponsor, as well as my current insurer, but this doesn't exactly fill me with a warm glow regarding a company's ethics. I can only hope it wasn't authorized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Brauner Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 First, Richard, thanks for your business. Guys- I'm not sure why Jason did this the way he did instead of just saying- we just published a good story in Working RE that you should read. We'll talk to him. But guys, the bottom line is that IT IS a good story that I learned quite a bit from. I hope you DO read it. He is an intern- give him a break, I'm sure he's learned his lesson. Enjoy the story and all the other great ones we publish for you at workingre.com. (This is David Brauner and I?m Editor of Working RE and Senior Broker at OREP.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Moore Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 David and Isaac, The merits of the story do not excuse the way it was presented here. But I/ we appreciate your responses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottpat Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 I think it is a weak article that gives too much support to ionization detectors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Just so everyone knows, We have an understanding with WRE that they get to publish their articles here and we get to borrow what we want from their database and republish it here and we get to publish our articles in WRE. Jason didn't have to say anything. All he had to do was post the entire article here if he'd wanted to and it would have been fine. Sometimes articles are great, sometimes not so great. That's life. Give the guy a break; it's his first romp in the park. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 I think it is a weak article that gives too much support to ionization detectors. Yes. Given the evidence, ionization detectors are just about worthless in house fires, as home fires so often start as a long smoldering condition. I'll give Jason a break. Next time, he oughta put up a draft for review; he'd get a good critique. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 I am quite happy David responded. The issue was a train wreck, but he responded and I know him to be a pretty good operator. Jason has learned. Kurt, do you think he will post something for us to review? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Where did I say I think he'd do something? Do you think I said I think something? Really? I was offering the guy some advice; he'd get a good critique. Then he could post it someplace where more than a couple dozen HI's read it, and maybe get some decent publicity for him and his publication. If he doesn't want a review, and wants to continue writing soft filler to stuff column inches that doesn't address real issues, let him publish it without review. Like he did. I applaud the guy's writing it, but it was lousy. A little editing, and it coulda been quite good. Do you think writer's don't need editing? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Jason would be smart to follow Kurt's suggestion. So much is wrong with articles written for the HI profession. Putting it thru the TIJ wringer would squeeze out the worthless blather, improve it's quality and build a favorable reputation for the author. And it's FREE. Just remember - being a member here involves going thru the gauntlet. It's a learning experience like no other. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Brauner Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Guys- point of clarification- Jason, the intern, did not write the story. It's a technical article written by a fairly well respected home inspector and author who has published here quite often, if I'm not mistaken. I will never buy a smoke detector for my family from now on that is not the 'dual' kind- that's what I learned. Why would I ignore that advise? To me, that's pretty significant. Maybe you knew that, I did not. http://www.workingre.com/workingre/smok ... -page.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Do you think writer's don't need editing? Really? Kurt, you know better than that. David, You are right, the purpose was to inform and it did that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Of course I do. But, you also know that "Really?" is the new black in snarky blog-noscenti put downs......."like, really?" So, I gave it back to you double barreled. He coulda put it up here, he'd have gotten a mountain of reference material from the technonerds, and he'd have a good article that would mean something. There's so much babble speak going on at every level of journalism, I am compelled to say something about it. He shoulda put it up for review by people that actually know the field. Because, the more I read about how crappy ionizing alarms are, and how much better photoelectric is at alerting folks before it gets bad, the more I want good information out there instead of blatherspeak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Guys- point of clarification- Jason, the intern, did not write the story. It's a technical article written by a fairly well respected home inspector and author who has published here quite often, if I'm not mistaken. I will never buy a smoke detector for my family from now on that is not the 'dual' kind- that's what I learned. Why would I ignore that advise? To me, that's pretty significant. Maybe you knew that, I did not. http://www.workingre.com/workingre/smok ... -page.html Except that that's incorrect and bad advice and a good reason why you should not publish technical articles without having them independently reviewed. The combination alarms are among the worst out there. If there's one type that you should *not* buy, it's the combination ones. I know who the author is, and he's sadly misinformed on this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Guys- point of clarification- Jason, the intern, did not write the story. It's a technical article written by a fairly well respected home inspector and author who has published here quite often, if I'm not mistaken. I will never buy a smoke detector for my family from now on that is not the 'dual' kind- that's what I learned. Why would I ignore that advise? To me, that's pretty significant. Maybe you knew that, I did not. http://www.workingre.com/workingre/smok ... -page.html Except that that's incorrect and bad advice and a good reason why you should not publish technical articles without having them independently reviewed. The combination alarms are among the worst out there. If there's one type that you should *not* buy, it's the combination ones. I know who the author is, and he's sadly misinformed on this issue. Tell us about the combination alarms. Marc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Brauner Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Hi Marc- this is from Consumer Reports. If you want the full report, you'll have to subscribe, I guess. None of the smoke or carbon monoxide alarms we tested did everything well individually but you can combine various types?photoelectric, ionization, combination or dual-sensor?for optimal protection. Here are the types of carbon monoxide and smoke alarms to consider. If you're looking for information about carbon monoxide & smoke alarms, Consumer Reports is your best resource. Consumer Reports? carbon monoxide & smoke alarm reviews will give you honest buying advice that you can trust. Use our carbon monoxide & smoke alarm buying guide to discover which features are most important to consider. We also provide unbiased Ratings and carbon monoxide & smoke alarm reviews to help you choose the best carbon monoxide or smoke alarm for your needs. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/co-a ... alarms.htm You may also find the following informative. I guess there is SOME room for disagreement. http://www.wmctv.com/story/16342765/the ... -detectors This is from the story: (TN Fire Marshall Gary West) "West said a combination of data supporting both types of detectors and the introduction of dual-sensor alarms to the consumer market a few months ago convinced him to officially recommend them." It's two year's old, so maybe there is some new info. Thanks for your patience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Kienitz Posted April 6, 2013 Report Share Posted April 6, 2013 NBC's Today show did a piece on the smoke alarms and featured an extremely well respected engineer from TAMU (Texas A&M Univ). This was aired on 10/03/2012. This story was not easy to miss, but seems like many have. I've attached the links below. NBC Today - Jeff Rossen Reports (Smoke Alarms) Texas A&M University - Dr. B. Don Russell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted April 6, 2013 Report Share Posted April 6, 2013 . . . Tell us about the combination alarms. No matter how good or bad a smoke alarm is at detecting the byproducts of combustion, it will be useless if it has been turned off or disabled. Smoke alarms that tend to produce a lot of nuisance alarms have a crummy history - they're not there when people need them because those same people disabled them. Ionization alarms are lousy in the nuisance alarm category, but they're nothing comparted to combination alarms, which produce far more nuisance alarms - sometimes twice as many. There's more but I'm on my way out to catch a plane. If I have time, I'll check in again in the next few days. In the meantime, (I hate to use this kind of logic, but time prevents an indepth response) I have to stress that I've studied this issue very, very carefully and in great detail. The bottom line is that there's a wide range in the ways that the manfuacturer's set the sensors in their combination alarms, which makes them more of a marketing gimmick than a realistic safety device. The "idea" of a combination alarms seems to make sense to people on a superficial level but the reality just doesn't pan out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Kienitz Posted April 6, 2013 Report Share Posted April 6, 2013 FWIW ... I went to my local big box HD on a mission for smoke alarms and they had a good supply of: CO, Ionization and Combination. Not a single photo-electric type on their shelves (at least at this particular HD). I have not yet ventured over to the big box Lowes yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.