15/10/2013

1

Smoke Alarms:

How safe are our

children ?

Your Name

Presentation Title

Background

• Between 2010 and 2013 in Derbyshire 36

people lost there lives in domestic house fires.

• 12 of these were children under the age of

13.

• Over the same period Derbyshire fire service

fitted over 36,000 smoke detectors in

domestic dwellings.

15/10/2013

2

Your Name

Presentation Title

11th May 2012

Fatal House Fire Derby

Your Name

Presentation Title

Case Study

• Petrol was poured onto the carpet behind the

front door and ignited.

15/10/2013

3

Your Name

Presentation Title

Your Name

Presentation Title

Case Study

• First 999 call stated the fire was at the front

door and that all six children were in the back

bedroom.

• All of the children were recovered from their

own beds by fire crews.

• 5 children pronounced dead 6th died two days

later.

15/10/2013

4

Your Name

Presentation Title

Case Study

• Property was fitted with two hard wired

interlinked optical smoke detectors.

• Philpots stated that the detectors had alerted

them to the fire.

Your Name

Presentation Title

Case Study

• Plan was for Michael Philpot to rescue the

children from the rear bedroom via a ladder

which had been placed there the day before.

15/10/2013

5

Your Name

Presentation Title

Your Name

Presentation Title

Case Study

• Fire investigators could not explain why the

children did not respond to the alarms

• Covert recordings suggest that Michael Philpot

could not understand why the children did not

respond to the smoke detectors operating.

15/10/2013

6

Your Name

Presentation Title

Case Study

• Remains of both detectors recovered from the

scene.

• Forensic testing of remains suggested

• “No evidence could be found to suggest that

the detectors failed to operate”

• Toxicology tests confirmed

• “Children had not been drugged”

Your Name

Presentation Title

Case Study

• No reason could be found for the failure of the

smoke detectors to wake the children.

• Questions were being asked as to what went

wrong.

15/10/2013

7

Your Name

Presentation Title

Hypothesis

• Can we find out why the children did not

survive the fire?

• Do children respond from sleep to the sound

of a standard domestic smoke detector?

• Research project with

University of Strathclyde

Your Name

Presentation Title

Aim of Study

• Whether or not common smoke detectors

would wake children under the age of 12 from

sleep.

• Whether there were sex or age related

differences in children’s response to smoke

detectors.

• Whether equivalent responses would be

obtained with low frequency smoke detectors.

15/10/2013

8

Your Name

Presentation Title

Previous Research

• Bruck (1996) suggested children may not wake

up

• Bruck (1999) also came to the same

conclusion.

• No research carried out in the UK.

Your Name

Presentation Title

The Experiment

• Children allowed to go to sleep as normal

• Parents asked to push and hold the test

button for a full minute recording any children

that woke up.

• Each test was repeated 6 times over a two

week period.

• Children were not told of the study until

completion of the last test.

15/10/2013

9

Your Name

Presentation Title

Selection Criteria

• Families with children between the age of 5

and 13

• None of the children had any sleep disorders.

• Standard domestic Smoke detectors fitted

within the property.

Your Name

Presentation Title

Initial problems

• Parents refused to carry out the tests.

• Fire service confidence that smoke alarms

work.

15/10/2013

10

Your Name

Presentation Title

Families Taking Part

Fire Service families

71%

Non-Fire Service families

29%

PROPORTION OF FIRE AND NON-FIRE SERVICE FAMILIES

Your Name

Presentation Title

Average time to test.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1

Distribution of sleep time to alarm test.

0-60 61-120 121-180 181-240 241-300 301-360 361-420 421-480 481-540 541-600

15/10/2013

11

Your Name

Presentation Title

Distance from Detector

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 2 2.5 2.6 3 3.5 4 4.5 4.6 5 6 8

Nu

mb

er

of

chil

dre

n

Distence from detector in Metres

Number of children

Your Name

Presentation Title

Effect of the environment

• Bedroom doors

• Half tests door open Half door closed

– (Robinson 1986)

• Night lights

• 4 children slept with night lights on.

• None awoke to alarm with light on.

• Ambient Noise

• No effect.

– (Kahn 1984)

15/10/2013

12

Your Name

Presentation Title

Results (Standard Detector)

• 80% of children, slept through the alarms on

all 6 tests.

• Of the 34 children tested, only 7 (all girls)

woke during any of the individual 6 tests.

• Only 2 girls woke each time that the alarm

was sounded during the individual 6 tests.

Your Name

Presentation Title

Low Frequency Detectors

• 6 Boys and 6 Girls who slept through first

study selected.

• All tested 6 separate times with Low

frequency (520hz) Domestic detector.

• 100% of boys never woke up.

• 100% of girls woke up

15/10/2013

13

Your Name

Presentation Title

Conclusions

• Results of this study indicate that it is highly

likely that children will not wake to the sound

of a standard domestic smoke detector.

• This improved for girls when tested with a low

frequency (520hz)detector but had no effect

on boys.

Your Name

Presentation Title

Advice to Parents

• Don’t panic !!

• Revisit your fire escape plan

• If detector sounds go to the children

15/10/2013

14

Your Name

Presentation Title

Dave CossMSc BSc(Hons) FSSSocDip GFireE

Derbyshire Fire and Rescue service

dcoss@derbys-fire.gov.uk

01246 223500