Mandatory Carbon Monoxide Detectors?

[Yota]

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=89572

DENVER - Carbon monoxide detectors would be required for every home sold in Colorado and every new residence constructed, under a bill that passed the Senate Business Affairs and Labor Committee Tuesday.


Senate Bill 187 requires all single and multi-family dwellings sold after July 1 and any building permit issued after that date to be equipped with the detectors if there's a fuel-burning heater, fireplace or attached garage.

The measure passed the committee on a 4-3 vote after hearing from a family impacted by carbon monoxide poisoning, fire chiefs and a slew of opponents, including the state's home builders, apartment managers and building code inspectors.

Currently, 15 other states in the country have some sort of requirement that carbon monoxide detectors be installed for new construction and in all homes sold.

The detectors can cost anywhere from $20 to $200.

Robert Reyes says the cost is well worth it. His family needed hours in a hyperbaric chamber to remove the so-called "silent killer" from their blood in April, 2006 after their furnace leaked.

"We ask you to make it mandatory," he said of the purchase of carbon monoxide detectors. "Life is more important than $20."

Opponents said they, too, want to keep people safe, but that this was an issue for local building codes, not for the State Legislature. Further, they asserted that local building code inspectors have not required CO detectors, like they have smoke detectors, because their technology is flawed.

"Carbon monoxide alarms are not ready for prime time," testified Greg Wheeler, a code inspector in Thornton. "They don't have the reliability and longevity of smoke detectors."

Denver Fire Chief Nick Nuanes told lawmakers that from 2003-2007, his department responded to 520 incidents involving carbon monoxide poisoning. In those cases, 81 people were taken to the hospital. Douglas Forsman, the fire chief of the Union Colony Fire Rescue Authority, said roughly one person a month dies in Colorado due to CO poisoning.

The measure now moves to the full State Senate where its sponsor, Sen. Bob Hagedorn (D-Aurora) said he is willing to discuss whether apartments should be exempt from the measure. A representative from the Colorado Apartment Association testified the measure would cost roughly $14 million to implement in the Denver Metro Area alone.



(Copyright KUSA*TV, All Rights Reserved)

[Oscar]

Man the gubbermint needs to get the hell out of my bizness.

[Yota]

My take:

Robert Reyes says the cost is well worth it. His family needed hours in a hyperbaric chamber to remove the so-called "silent killer" from their blood in April, 2006 after their furnace leaked.

"We ask you to make it mandatory," he said of the purchase of carbon monoxide detectors. "Life is more important than $20."

This is typical. Translation: I know how best to spend YOUR money.

1. How does this guy know that it's worth $20 to someone who, say, is unemployed or otherwise very poor?

2. It's more than $20 because these detectors don't last very long compared to a smoke detector.

3. It's possible for CO to get pumped throughout your house so a single detector may not really provide the protection they claim. That means more money to install more detectors.

4. If you multiply the odds of being injured in a CO poisoning and the odds that these detectors will actually work as billed after sitting idle for a long time, by the cost of implementation, it is unclear to me that there is any benefit to this kind of thing relative to investment in something else (fire extinguisher? simple maintenance check? etc?)

5. The cost of implementing this is enormous ($14 million in Denver Metro alone - paid by residents) relative to its potential benefits. And they say themselves that only 1 person per year in Colorado is actually killed from a CO accident. This is absolutely typical of the emotional liberal sentiment "if it saves one life then it's worth the cost." BS! Well this literally only saves one life but it is not worth the cost when you consider how we might better spend that same amount of money. It is entirely reasonable to imagine other things a person could do with 20 bucks every year or two that could provide greater safety.

I just get sick of the government trying to mandate crap like this. More laws, more regulations, less freedom, all in the name of some "common good". Why not spend, say, a few hundred grand on an ad campaign urging people to buy CO monitors (and what about CO2? That can happen as well!)

Why not mandate fire extinguishers?

I mean it could go on and on and on with the government always finding some new crisis to justify removal of your money and your liberties.

[Trango]

x2. And what about this "National Electrical Code"? Total BS - if I want to junction all of my wires into a big ball and stuff that into an old ceramic pepper shaker for insulation, that should be my RIGHT to do.

Or paint? I should be able to paint what I want, Lead or no Lead. Hell, Lead paint is better AND cheaper.

There are so many building codes for your safety, Yota, that cost many times more than $20, that this is really a tiny cost in the overall spec of a house. Fire doors, roof design, EXPENSIVE tempered glass required around doors and on kid-accessible heights, the list goes on and on.

[Breck4x4[John]]

My take:



This is typical. ...
I just get sick of the government trying to mandate crap like this. More laws, more regulations, less freedom, all in the name of some "common good". Why not spend, say, a few hundred grand on an ad campaign urging people to buy CO monitors (and what about CO2? That can happen as well!)

...

I mean it could go on and on and on with the government always finding some new crisis to justify removal of your money and your liberties.

How many people on the board are effected by the "2006 International Fire Code" I know before it was adopted in Breck (minus the no grills in multi family structures with more than 3 units) there was actually some consensus that the gov't might be going too far.

[denverd0n]

This is typical. Translation: I know how best to spend YOUR money.
Yep. And what's more, it's typical of the government-solution-for-every-problem attitude that says, if it's a good idea then we should make it a law!

Is it a good idea to have a carbon monoxide detector in your house? Hell yes! Does that mean it's a good idea to have a law REQUIRING it? Hell no!

[Yota]

x2. And what about this "National Electrical Code"? Total BS - if I want to junction all of my wires into a big ball and stuff that into an old ceramic pepper shaker for insulation, that should be my RIGHT to do.

Or paint? I should be able to paint what I want, Lead or no Lead. Hell, Lead paint is better AND cheaper.

There are so many building codes for your safety, Yota, that cost many times more than $20, that this is really a tiny cost in the overall spec of a house. Fire doors, roof design, EXPENSIVE tempered glass required around doors and on kid-accessible heights, the list goes on and on.

This is NOT a building code and you know it. Building codes are local matters. This is a state law requiring a person to shell out $20 or more to retrofit their home with a detector that is only of negligible safety value.

We should leave these issues to local building codes, not start passing sweeping state laws that could get people in trouble for not having a stupid CO detector.

And, again, why are we focusing on CO detectors and not fire extinguishers which, I guarantee, would save more lives? Same amount of money or less.

My point is that it is just dumb economics and more senseless encroachment from government.

[newracer]

Here in FoCo they make builders install radon mitigation systems in all new homes. More costly than a CO detector and even less of a health risk. :shrug:

[Yota]

At least the thing in FoCo is not a state law. But don't mention that to your average Democrat rep.

[Steve]

This is absolutely typical of the emotional liberal sentiment "if it saves one life then it's worth the cost." BS! Well this literally only saves one life but it is not worth the cost when you consider how we might better spend that same amount of money.

I don't buy that it's just a "liberal" attitude; it's a government attitude. And you are spot on about putting a $ value on a human life. It's distasteful, but it must be done when you consider spending in order to maximize the risk reduction from different spending priorities. The generally-accepted number for human health risk analyses is $1MM/life. If it costs less than that to prevent a death it's generally worth it; if it's more it's not.

Here in FoCo they make builders install radon mitigation systems in all new homes. More costly than a CO detector and even less of a health risk. :shrug:

But that's DEADLY RADIATION we're talking about, which can POISON you. :eek:

(You are 100% correct.)

[Trango]

Wait, this is JUST for homes with a wood or oil-burner, or an attached garage? The garage is sort of iffy, but if you have a wood or oil-burner, you absolutely should already have a CO monitor.

It's like, if your citizenry have teeth, you should probably have your municipality add flouride in your water.

Interesting - I wonder what the economic cost is for (statewide) roughly 500 people (extrapolating from Denver's 500, amortizing per year) being responded to, with 80 hospitalizations (again, x4 and then /4), and one death a month (!!!!). Let's say $6 million a year cost of 12 annual deaths (overall), depreciated down to $3m for average life span, say avg hosp stay $2000, so $160,000 in hospital fees minimum, not counting possible occupational therapy for CO poisoning followon costs, boosting costs to $250k, then fire rescue spending (man hours/material cost) roughly $1m a year on reponse to CO poisoning. Back of envelope, this easily could be, economically, a $7m issue per annum for colorado. Granted, only a portion of potential victims would be in recently bought houses, so you'd really want to expand this to be law everywhere. :thumbsup:

Fire extinguishers, BTW, combats a wholly different issue.

[Trango]

Amend rambling to include $1m per mortem cost.

[stewp97]

I'm sure the fire departments will be thrilled with all the new calls about people's CO2 detectors going off for no reason.

About the garage issue:
We built a two story apartment complex with individual garages below the units. During construction we watched a couple of people who lived in different units of the occupied buildings warm up their cars in the garage with the garage doors closed :rolleyes:.

[denverd0n]

...if you have a wood or oil-burner, you absolutely should already have a CO monitor.
Yes, you SHOULD. It's the sensible thing to do. But does that mean that we should pass a law REQUIRING it? Should we pass laws requiring everyone to do everything that they SHOULD do?

I would say, no.

[stewp97]

Wait, this is JUST for homes with a wood or oil-burner, or an attached garage? The garage is sort of iffy, but if you have a wood or oil-burner, you absolutely should already have a CO monitor.


Natural gas and propane are fuels too.

[salsashark]

Please government... protect me from myself!!! :rolleyes:

[Yota]

I don't buy that it's just a "liberal" attitude; it's a government attitude. And you are spot on about putting a $ value on a human life. It's distasteful, but it must be done when you consider spending in order to maximize the risk reduction from different spending priorities. The generally-accepted number for human health risk analyses is $1MM/life. If it costs less than that to prevent a death it's generally worth it; if it's more it's not.

My issue is that they DON'T actually look at the value of human life. But the absolute value of a life is not the point, it's the fact that well-meaning liberals (and yes, it is largely a liberal phenomenon to say "if it saves one life then it's worth the cost") often don't consider that there may be other alternatives (often not even involving the government!) that would actually save more lives for equal or less money.

But there is this urge to do something! pass a law! take action now! force people to do things because it's for their own good! that pervades modern liberal thinking.

So while it's no big deal for me to go buy a stinking $20 CO monitor, that's just a case in point. The next thing will be outlawing smoking in bars and HOMES or any number of other things (imagine if government controlled health care!)

So I wanted to point this out because this is a classic example. But we dare not criticize it because it's "for a good cause" - the typical excuse for fascism.

[Yota]

Wait, this is JUST for homes with a wood or oil-burner, or an attached garage? The garage is sort of iffy, but if you have a wood or oil-burner, you absolutely should already have a CO monitor.

It's like, if your citizenry have teeth, you should probably have your municipality add flouride in your water.

Interesting - I wonder what the economic cost is for (statewide) roughly 500 people (extrapolating from Denver's 500, amortizing per year) being responded to, with 80 hospitalizations (again, x4 and then /4), and one death a month (!!!!). Let's say $6 million a year cost of 12 annual deaths (overall), depreciated down to $3m for average life span, say avg hosp stay $2000, so $160,000 in hospital fees minimum, not counting possible occupational therapy for CO poisoning followon costs, boosting costs to $250k, then fire rescue spending (man hours/material cost) roughly $1m a year on reponse to CO poisoning. Back of envelope, this easily could be, economically, a $7m issue per annum for colorado. Granted, only a portion of potential victims would be in recently bought houses, so you'd really want to expand this to be law everywhere. :thumbsup:

Fire extinguishers, BTW, combats a wholly different issue.

You're tell me that it's for a good cause. I already grant you it's for a good cause.

And I concur that everyone should have a CO monitor.

But I don't think this needs to be a state law.

And your calculations fail to include alternative costs. You are 1. assuming that everyone who was attended to will suddenly NOT be attended to after passing this, and 2. that people won't suddenly become complacent about maintaining their heaters, or 3. not spend money on other areas that would actually benefit them more (which may cause them to be attended to for some OTHER safety deficiency).

We're talking very big picture here. You know that child safety caps, when they were mandated, were considered a great idea and that they would save all these lives. Same with airbags, same with seat belts, same with ski helmets (not yet legislated), same with motorcycle helmets.

All of these things actually CAUSED (yes, big word) an increase in deaths or shifted deaths to others because people suddenly "felt safe" and took fewer precautions. This is not my opinion, there has been research into it. No one is saying airbags or safety caps are inherently bad, but it can't be ignored that they had unintended consequences that no one has ever been held accountable for. They never are because politicians are either retired or moved up to higher office by the time these things come to light.

Aside from the law of unintended consequences and substitution effects, there's the fact that I know better than the government how to prioritize my spending on safety. Sure I may have an oil burner but I may also have another problem that's bigger (like, say, feeding my family if I'm very poor). So let ME decide.

[Trango]

If you're at the brink of poverty, chances are you're not going to be purchasing a home.

[Sound_Man]

My issue is that they DON'T actually look at the value of human life. But the absolute value of a life is not the point, it's the fact that well-meaning liberals (and yes, it is largely a liberal phenomenon to say "if it saves one life then it's worth the cost") often don't consider that there may be other alternatives (often not even involving the government!) that would actually save more lives for equal or less money.

But there is this urge to do something! pass a law! take action now! force people to do things because it's for their own good! that pervades modern liberal thinking.

Knee-jerk reactions.. It is all over our government and our lives now. I want my rear windows to go down all the way..:rolleyes:

So while it's no big deal for me to go buy a stinking $20 CO monitor, that's just a case in point. The next thing will be outlawing smoking in bars and HOMES or any number of other things (imagine if government controlled health care!)

This has already happened.

So I wanted to point this out because this is a classic example. But we dare not criticize it because it's "for a good cause" - the typical excuse for fascism.
.

[Frank Z]

From someone in the Biz...Yes they should be manditory. Do we need a law...no. The local building codes can be ammended to mandate the use or inclussion of a CO detector in any structure.


For those that feel that the CO detectors on the market aren't quite up to snuff, in some cases that may be, but trust me when i say that there are some very high quality detectors on the market. The onlyone that i recommend to my customers is a NightHawk. I would not trust my families life to anything else.

Take it from someone that has seen the effects of Carbon Monoxide Poisioning.....they should be manditory!

[Trango]

Fascist government, I hear you! I don't need to be forced to spend less than .01% of the cost of my new home on a carbon monoxide detector just because of some nanny state fascism. I concur that a surcharge of $20 on the purchase or sale of a home is autocracy at its ABSOLUTE WORST. Don't even get me started on how my $1200 annual property tax funds libraries, when, get this, I don't _EVEN READ BOOKS_. What a scam!

This conversation reminds me of the neighbor who told me last night that he's defaulting on his lease because another neighbor showed up on his doorstep, irate that neighbor #1 was playing his drums at 1AM. That the deck was stacked against him. That the situation was unworkeable. Hooo kay mr drama.

[OrangeCrush]

I agree with you Frank that they should be a mandatory piece of equipment but do we need to propagate the idea that citizens are retarded and wont buy them themselves?

[Frank Z]

If it were as simple as telling people to buy one, and they actually did...then no problem. Unforuntetly it's one of those things that people don't think about until its too late. The reason that I like the idea of manditory CO detectors can be summed up in one word...













Children.

They don't have the means to provide for their own safety and protection but their parents do. Parents aren't perfect and they do forget things. This is one time that I actually agree with mandating something like this.

[Trango]

The height of fascism is implicating danger for children. This is sickening how a nanny state is trying to tell me how to raise my children, and then telling me they're going to get hurt if I don't drink their koolaid.

Just to pry $20-100 dollars from me.

Enough? It's sort of fun playing the irate constitutionalist. I got some more:

Get the US out of the UN!

Stop Flouridation!

Hippies go back to Africa!

Man, what a setlist. I'll be here all night.

[Frank Z]

Okay, I give up....you don't have to get one Trango. Just you, everyone else still has to though.

Friggin' nonconformist!

:flipoff2: :beer:

[Yota]

.

I meant that bit about smoking to be sarcastic but it didn't come out right. :D

[Yota]

The height of fascism is implicating danger for children. This is sickening how a nanny state is trying to tell me how to raise my children, and then telling me they're going to get hurt if I don't drink their koolaid.

Just to pry $20-100 dollars from me.

Enough? It's sort of fun playing the irate constitutionalist. I got some more:

Get the US out of the UN!

Stop Flouridation!

Hippies go back to Africa!

Man, what a setlist. I'll be here all night.

I know it's easy for you to sneer at me for opposing a $20 monitor that is "for the children" but I already told you that it's the principle of the thing that bugs me.

And in any case, this is how liberals have worked since the early 20th century progressives that Hillary idolizes. It's piecemeal. It's ALWAYS for some (liberal-defined) good cause or for the crisis du jour that they must take away your money or your liberty. Question it and be deemed a cold-hearted bastard or worse.

But I still think it's important to point this crap out no matter how small it is or how good the intentions may be.

Yes, of course this is sold as "for the children," but you know what? Children face other dangers too. And I bet their parents can figure out how to prioritize their spending to keep their kids safer. And you know what else? After we spend this money on this CO monitor, the children STILL will not be safe. We'll need to mandate the next thing and the next thing.

Why does it never end? Because you're chasing a unicorn. This notion that government, through carefully crafted legislation, can make us all "safe" is pure fantasy.

[Trango]

I'm just saying your ire is so pointless. If you personally lose more than $20 on this that can't be recouped upon home sale, I will, yota, personally buy you a steak dinner. In the grand scheme of home purchase, this is a drop in the bucket. It just also happens to be a good idea that has an almost zero cost to implement. It's like the manual trunk latch that most cars must be equipped with (not sure on policy). It costs probably $1 to install, and while there's a ZERO chance you'll ever be locked in the trunk, you're not going to suffer great injury from the cost.

When you craft policy like this, often the only way to put any teeth in something like this is to mandate it. Lead paint and asbestos disclosures comes to mind - sure, we all know those things are bad, but we wouldn't think to ask or act on these unless we were Nader himself.

PS It's so uncanny you mention unicorns.

Me:
http://www.heartbleed.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/emo-wallpaperpreview.jpg

Cover of my poetry book:

http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:13MPenK7POwJ:www.unicorncentre.co.uk/Picture---UnicornFlying-for.jpg

[Yota]

Yes, I know we would all live in shoddily-built hovels if it weren't for the government. We have no inherent incentive to spend on our own safety, the government must give us laws "with teeth" to make us take care of ourselves in every minute way. Speaking of which, why not legislate brushing of teeth. It prevents tooth decay, you know.

Loving the emo look, Bob. :flipoff2:

[Trango]

I cut myself, Yota, because Daddy doesn't love me.

[scottycards]

Finally, this thread has become worthy of contribution. Thanks, Trango.

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u13/amanda69du/EmoChoices.jpg

[Joker]

Finally, this thread has become worthy of contribution. Thanks, Trango.

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u13/amanda69du/EmoChoices.jpg


:eek::spit::lmao:

[MinesJeep]

Finally, this thread has become worthy of contribution. Thanks, Trango.

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u13/amanda69du/EmoChoices.jpg

Thats Priceless