So, you have smoke detectors in your home and you’re as safe as you can be, correct? 

Of course if you have smoke detectors you also have fire extinguishers of the proper type and in the proper locations, and you actually know how to use them, correct? 

And you actually bought an extra extinguisher so you could use the extinguisher and therefore know the range, spray pattern, duration of discharge, etc., correct?  Sure you did.  After all, you’re prepared.  You pay big money for insurance each year, so of course you did all those simple and low-cost things to tilt the odds in your favor.  

You’re better than those other folks who have a smoke detector but couldn’t tell you if the battery is working or not; and if they have a fire extinguisher they have no idea what type it is, what type of fire to use it on, where it is at the moment, how far or close to stand with it to use it effectively; and… well, you get the idea.  You’re much better prepared than that.

Check out the article here, and maybe the short discussion here.

One part of the article at the first link doesn’t make sense to me:

Both organizations have recommended for several years that homes use a dual alarm containing both ionization and photoelectric technology. They are joined in that recommendation by the National Fire Protection Association, which sets national standards for installing alarms.

McGinn opposes the dual alarms because they still contain ionization.
 

So, what’s wrong with ionization if it provides a secondary sensing element?

I think I’ll take a look at my smoke detectors.  Seems to me if I’m selective about the gas I put in my car and the ammo I put in my guns, I should also be selective about the smoke detectors I use.