The American Spectator : Detector Nannies

Text Size

Detector Nannies

By Peter Hannaford on 6.13.11 @ 6:07AM

The Golden State's latest efforts to choke its citizenry.

George Orwell would have loved them. The members of the California State Legislature, unwilling to come to grips with their giant deficit, have decided instead that all 37 million of their fellow citizens must be saved from death by carbon monoxide.

How? By passing a law -- with little publicity -- requiring every single-family home in the state that has gas or electric appliances, a fireplace and/or attached garage to install carbon monoxide detectors -- by July 1!

How great is the threat? Not very. The acting State fire marshal claims that nationally an average of 480 people die of carbon monoxide poisoning. That is a tragedy for those involved, of course, but in California, with about 11 percent of the population, that would mean an average of 53 such deaths a year. Rather than requiring every home -- about 15 million of them -- to pay $20 to $40 per detector (and some homes would require more than one), an extensive statewide public service ad campaign should achieve the same cautionary result at very little cost. Legislators, however, don't think that way. It's easier to play Nanny and "mandate" things.

If the average California home spends an average of, say, $30, for a Nanny-imposed detector that would be a total of $450 million going to retail dealers and manufacturers of the devices. A recent "study" conducted by First Alert, a company that makes and sells carbon monoxide detectors, "found" that nine of 10 California households "were not in compliance with the national recommendation for the number of carbon monoxide detectors required in a home," according to a recent news story. The people at First Alert must be salivating. One wonders how many legislators' campaigns received contributions from them.

First it was incandescent bulbs, now carbon monoxide detectors. What's next?

While that question is being pondered, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that California must cut its prison population by 33,000 has Governor Jerry Brown in a sweat as to the ways and means to accomplish it. He wants to send many of them to county jails and pay counties to take them.

There is no money to do that and Brown is hoping that funds will come from an extension of sales and vehicle taxes due to expire June 30. That would require a vote which could not come until November and there is no guarantee the voters will approve the measure. In fact, they are in a mood to turn it down.

Meanwhile, Brown and the legislature are talking about rescinding some of the education tax cuts they said they would make. There has been much hand-wringing in school districts and many vocal delegations dispatched to Sacramento. California voters treat education as a sacred cow and are generally supine when asked to support any education spending measure. In boom times, 2004-07, the state increased spending on K-12 and community colleges from $47 billion a year to $56 billion. Although student enrollment was not growing, the schools added 4,000 teachers and 2,100 administrative personnel. Many districts, with the real estate boom generating new taxes from property sales, increased teacher salaries and benefits. As usual, they spent as if there were no tomorrow. Tomorrow did come and it's still here. Revenues are down. The real estate market is bad and not improving. The state is among the top in state pay and the bottom five in student test scores. Sacramento wants to go back to spending more. Go figure, as they say.

About the Author

Peter Hannaford was closely associated with the late President Ronald Reagan for a number of years. His latest book is Reagan's Roots: The People and Places That Shaped His Character.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (47) | Leave a comment

Gary| 6.13.11 @ 7:39AM

Legally, is this similar to requiring citizens to purchase health insurance? If it’s not part of their Building Code, it may be.

Richard Baker| 6.13.11 @ 7:41AM

Let the Californians rot on the vine. Absolute insanity masquerading as a state government. C'mon, San Andreas! Buy your waterfront property now in Nevada and Arizona.

JohnDriskill Driskill| 6.13.11 @ 8:08AM

It probably comes with everything you need, but you will likely need something to attach it to the wall with. You may need skews, or other hanging material.
http://nuescience.posterous.co.....es-it-work

WRTolkas| 6.13.11 @ 8:09AM

I work in a company that started by manufacturing smoke detectors and now carbon-monoxide detectors.

Now for my dirty little secret: The carbon-monoxide detector's useful life is only three to four years.

D. Singh| 6.13.11 @ 8:13AM

Sir

I take it that Californians who keep a canary will be exempt?

Dan Hirsch| 6.13.11 @ 8:37AM

California IS the canary!!!!

Anita| 6.13.11 @ 10:38AM

Well, the tail end of one.

Radioman777| 6.13.11 @ 10:01AM

Only an idiot would think a CO detector would be useful in an all electric home. Besides, with a raw probability of about 0.005% of actually dying from CO poisoning, it's simply not worth the monetary outlay, even if the detectors were only a buck.

Ned| 6.13.11 @ 11:57AM

The only carbon monoxide deaths that I have seen in the news here in La-La Land North have been (1) intentional/suicides or (2) illiterates from warmer climates (illegals?) burning charcoal indoors to stay warm during power outages in the winter. How exactly is a CO detector going to prevent any of these?

Joe D.| 6.13.11 @ 10:01AM

Peter Hannaford it started with the low flow toilets and then front load washers. I am probably missing somethings. However, it has been going on a long while. Some others are HOV lanes, bicycle helmets, 7 million air bags in cars, remove of unsafe toys. These liberal nannies are rediculas and need to be stopped.

steve| 6.13.11 @ 1:52PM

Don't forget the mandate to replace incandescent bulbs with mercury laden fluorescent bulbs! Obama is cruising through our state today touting his jobs agenda, ironically by visiting Cree, which seems to be doing fine without government handouts and mandates.

Sam Vaughn| 6.13.11 @ 10:04AM

Obviously they failed to do an environmental impact study on the effect of this law. The stat should be required to measure the carbon footprint of extra emissions for people driving to Home Depot to buy the CO detector. The State should be required to pay it's own carbon footprint tax out of legislative salaries.

John Navratil| 6.13.11 @ 10:08AM

Gas or electric appliances? How much carbon monoxide does an electric appliance generate?

Too Many Tims| 6.13.11 @ 10:26AM

Normally an aplliance in proper functioning condition burns methane (natural gas) which is CH4 with O2 from the atmosphere, producing CO2 and H20- plant food.
However an improperly installed unit, or a malfunctioning one can produce CO. This is why a licensed tech should install these appliances with a City inspection to follow up, in the form of a plumbing permit.

Skinner| 6.13.11 @ 3:58PM

Missed the part about "electrical appliance", did ya?

blackwatch| 6.15.11 @ 1:26AM

"City Inspection to follow up"---wow where are you from? I am a Home Inspector in California. Most people do not bother pulling a permit and getting an inspection when they replace a furnace. It just does not happen. They depend on the HVAC contractor to do the job right--which is damn dumb. If there is a major malfunction and the home owner dies--well their relatives get to sue. Welcome to California.

FYI---a wood burning fireplace does produce CO--so even an all electric house (less than 10% of the market) that has a wood burning fireplace should have a CO detector.

And don't buy a cheap CO detector. Get one with a digital readout so you can determine if you have an issue or if you are having a false alarm. Also smoke detectors last up to 10 years. Take a look at them folks.

replace them if they are old--they a $12 at lowes/home depot.

Dustoff| 6.13.11 @ 10:18AM

The funny part. How many people in say Southern Calif with this so called G/W would they even turn on there heaters during the winter?

Too Many Tims| 6.13.11 @ 10:23AM

A CO detector is a good idea, depending on your heat source. Of course, the choice should be yours and yours alone.

Gary| 6.13.11 @ 10:33AM

La La land keeps getting weirder. It seems that since the legislature can't really govern in areas that matter like the budget, prisons, it chooses to be perceived as "doing something" by enacting nanny state laws and regulations that cost its' citizens money and limits freedom. But again, the "citizens" elect these yahoos so they deserve this falderol. Glad I live in fly over country in rural Arkansas.

insanity| 6.13.11 @ 10:47AM

nice news

J.C.Eaton| 6.13.11 @ 12:11PM

But yet, the denizens of this forlorn shit-hole vote and vote and vote for more of the same. Unbelievable!

Jack London| 6.13.11 @ 1:27PM

I know of someone who died of CO poisoning in the home. A detector would have saved her life. Surely it at least makes sense for mandatory installation in rental homes and new buildings with gas burning appliances.

skip| 6.13.11 @ 2:42PM

Nope. Wrong again. Way to keep your record flawless on AmSpec. What makes sense is for any individual to purchase a carbon monoxide detector for their residence whether they own or rent it if they are concerned about this issue, and to purchase household utilities and appliances consistent with this concern.

Jack London| 6.13.11 @ 4:39PM

I've just done a quick Google and it seems 24 states already require rental properties to have CO monitors. Is this really the sort of safeguard you'd remove from tenants? Would you also remove all codes for electrical wiring and plumbing? How could a family gassed in bed by a dangerous appliance sue the landlord if they are all dead? I really don't see the politics here - surely this is just decent standards.

skip| 6.13.11 @ 7:23PM

Gosh. Gee. I guess you're right. And it got me to thinking: feces contamination has killed millions over time; I've personally witnessed countless individuals in public restrooms take care of business without washing their hands; when this occurs in a restaurant these people then handle cash money which is passed to others in change; for that matter people shake hands all the time and no one can know if they washed their hands even in the privacy of their own homes...

What could be a more decent standard, and politically neutral as a bonus, then ensuring all people wash their hands properly? Surely it makes sense to have hand washing monitors everywhere there is a toilet whether in public buildings or in private homes. This monitor will have to be in the form of a camera, or video recording device, of course.

Nope. Wrong again. Way to keep your record flawless on AmSpec. Tenants can always refuse to rent from rental properties if they have no carbon monoxide monitors as an exercise of their liberties. Of course the rental property owners can either provide, or not provide, carbon monoxide monitors as an exercise of their liberties. And, any renter can always purchase and install their own carbon monoxide monitor as an exercise of their liberties. Please stop being an idiot.

Jack London| 6.14.11 @ 5:29AM

So - it's your contention that there should be no safety codes for rentals at all. Any family in a low income area has to conduct a full safety check or take their chances. This is really the definition of an idiot.

skip| 6.14.11 @ 12:42PM

Gosh. Gee. I guess you're right. As everyone knows as an article of faith, codes guarantee residential safety.

Logic, reason, and experience forbid anyone from considering these decent standards of codes, covering safety issues for every conceivable potential scenario imaginable, could ever create more problems than they solve; for instance, by overwhelming builders, producing staggering bureaucratic costs, and encouraging both builders and bureaucrats to lie or to cheat or to steal in meeting safety requirements, through, for example, bribery, or extortion, or graft, or any other form of corruption; or creating inherent incompetence; or even resulting in unaffordable housing, forcing residents into less expensive, and ironically less safe, housing.

Please stop being an idiot.

Jack London| 6.14.11 @ 1:19PM

Everything you write really just makes you look more stupid, skip. I asked you if you'd abandon existing codes and you just rant about covering 'every conceivable potential scenario imaginable'. I'm talking about things like basic electrical and gas safety. What are you talking about?

skip| 6.14.11 @ 2:26PM

This back and forth began when you claimed it was sensible for Americans to forfeit even more constitutionally guaranteed liberty by allowing the government to enforce another mandate.

Reason and experience was used in response to your claim based on emotion to determine your claim will do more harm than good, consideration of constitutionality not withstanding.

This response was ignored even as another similar claim based on emotion was made, which was refuted by reason and experience, which was ignored even as another similar claim based on emotion was made, which was refuted by reason and experience, which was ignored, establishing this pattern ad nauseaum.

Please stop being an idiot.

Jack London| 6.14.11 @ 3:22PM

I take it you have no defense then except to blather. I think most Americans would think it sensible policy to require landlords to conform to home safety codes for something as lethal as faulty gas appliances. You would indeed look an idiot if you campaigned against this, but as you feel so strongly about it why don't you launch 'Skip's gas lottery - which home will kill you?' First prize: death.

skip| 6.14.11 @ 3:45PM

Another emotional post, ignoring previous responses based on reason and experience, displaying a lack of intelligence and a lack of honesty, failing to even acknowledge the policy under consideration has been proven in the previous responses to be anything but sensible, from the basis of common sense, from the basis of reason, from the basis of experience, from the basis of morality, and from the basis of constitutionality.

Stop being an idiot.

Occam's Tool| 6.13.11 @ 3:34PM

That's what individual adult decision making is for, Jack. Of course, you may agree with the "don't iron this shirt while wearing it" labels, as well.

I don't think the real Jack would have gone that far.

lost| 6.13.11 @ 1:52PM

CA is not the only state with a law requiring CO detectors WI has one already

DaveD| 6.13.11 @ 9:30PM

So does MN (probably copied the dumb idea from you cheeseheads).

So I dutifully went and got one. A year or so later it started going beep every five minute or so. "It needs a new battery," I thought so I replaced the battery - thing still kept going beep every five minutes or so. Took it off the wall and outside in the fresh air - thing still went beep every five minutes or so. Threw it away. I'll replace it with a new one when and if I decide to sell the house.

SpiralArchitect| 6.13.11 @ 1:59PM

Go figure, as they say

I dunno how to figure, mister. I was educated in California.

Occam's Tool| 6.13.11 @ 3:35PM

That's edumakated in California, Spiral (UCLA residency in Psychiatry completed in 1993).

Ore Gone| 6.13.11 @ 2:05PM

They start with you need to weatherize and get rid of all drafts and now they tell us your home is too tight and the indoor air quality is bad. If you need a detector go get one and leave the rest of us alone. I am sick of being kept safe with all the regulations and permitting! I am quite capable of thinking for myself and I take full responsibility for the results.

George S| 6.13.11 @ 3:15PM

Government (people) mandates social behavior with laws and encourages or discourages social behavior with taxes. If taking steps to saving lives via precautionary measures is a good behavior the people want to encourage, offer tax breaks or rebates for installing those detectors. Otherwise, it is crony capitalism with kickbacks to politicians who otherwise wouldn't care if you choked on an exhaust pipe when your taxpaying days are behind you.

Osamas Pajamas| 6.13.11 @ 4:04PM

Californians and Americans at large should undertake "any" action which causes First Alert to "lose money" from these government mandates. Whether this involves a boytcott or some other damage, or just disobedience to the "law" [I call it disobedience to a "hijacking"], it really is necessary to casue significant damage to the profiteers --- and to the politicians and bureuacrats who doubtless are getting sub rosa kickbacks [that's "money under the table"] for alla yew yahoos.

Osamas Pajamas| 6.13.11 @ 4:08PM

This mandate really does constitute "theft" of monies by government edict. How would you treat a sidewalk thug who tried to steal this money from you? Hopefully you'd sharpen the point on his head and drive him right down through the sidewalk. I encourage the reader to think of the California government --- and government at-large --- in identical terms.

weddingdresses| 6.14.11 @ 4:29AM

Article is very interesting,thanks for your sharing.I will visit this site.

Jeffrey Rice| 6.14.11 @ 7:26AM

It probably comes with everything you need, but you will likely need something to attach it to the wall with.
http://nuescience.posterous.co.....es-it-work

Only Republican at Woodstock| 6.15.11 @ 12:09AM

According to the National Weather Service, approximately 400 people are injured or killed by lightning each year. Seems like the odds are pretty similar to CO poisoning. Is California going to force everyone to carry a personal lightning rod?

Only Republican at Woodstock| 6.15.11 @ 12:10AM

Oops. I just realized I might be giving them ideas. Forget I mentioned lightning rods.

Anna| 6.20.11 @ 10:06PM

Yeah ,, Hahaha , you are right . welcome to visit www.sexdollusa.com .cheapest price and best serviser will be your best choise.our Adult toys