We asked our experts to review a piece from the New York Times titled “Our Burn Tests Proved There’s No Substitute for a Real Fire Extinguisher.” The article compares aerosol fire extinguishers to traditional ones. Overall, it says that while aerosols are pretty handy and easy to use, they have a lot of reliability issues and aren’t as effective in putting out fires. NYT also suggests that aerosols could be useful as a backup for small kitchen fires, but for any serious situation, traditional extinguishers like the First Alert HOME1 are much more powerful and reliable.
Here’s what our experts think:
“I don’t really understand what this article is highlighting. It’s not exactly making a case for aerosols. After explaining that traditional extinguishers are better, more reliable, and 3rd party certified (UL), there’s really no point in having an aerosol if you already have an extinguisher, especially if there isn’t much difference in cost. Having been in the fire protection industry, I’ll stick with the extinguisher over what comes across as a gimmicky alternative. If the extinguisher doesn’t work, I’m getting out of the house. Extinguishers work and are simple to operate. I feel a whole lot better cleaning up any residue than replacing the house and all its belongings.”
“I usually promote a layered approach to fire protection. A fire extinguisher is a good start because, often, a small fire can be extinguished before it develops into a larger fire. If the aerosol isn’t UL listed and has no UL rating, the buyer has only the manufacturer’s claim about the effectiveness of the product. I worry companies can oversell the effectiveness based on hearsay or anecdotal evidence. This could lead to a person attempting to extinguish a fire using a product that isn’t rated for the hazard.
The article illustrates the importance of having a larger listed extinguisher as the primary extinguisher and possibly adding smaller listed extinguishers as supplemental protection. The homeowner should also have a plan for employing these tools during a fire emergency.”
“I was asked recently to provide my thoughts on an article that was produced by the New York Times titled “Our Burn Tests Proved There’s No Substitute for a Real Fire Extinguisher,” Published February 4, 2025. The Times writers are always careful about what they say, especially about products. Their analysis on this topic followed suit, they were very careful in their explanations. Here are some thoughts after reading the article.
The audience for the article is the homeowner. Home products are quite different than those for businesses that must have extinguishers that comply with NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers. The market for the home is much less regulated and for most states, almost anything is allowed that has not been identified as a safety problem. The federal Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) will only step in if there is an imminent risk of injuries and deaths from consumer products. The Times did not mention CPSC with regards to any of the products in their article.
The article reviews the small spray cans being sold to homeowners for use on small fires. Although they initially call them “a new style of fire extinguisher,” those in the fire and life safety industry know how different they are from portable fire extinguishers installed for the protection of people and property in commercial buildings. The Times spoke to someone that had been with UL that said “We don’t even think they should be called fire extinguishers.” They also mention California, Nevada, or New York prohibit the sale of these products. They go on to say they could find only one model that had been tested to any kind of third-party safety standards. The Times seemed to be careful but fair in their remarks on these products.
The article seemed to be grasping for something positive to say and finally said “we think they (small spray cans) could have a role as a supplemental tool—but only if you already have a traditional extinguisher”. Although this would most likely never be the case in a commercial building, it seemed like they were trying to emphasize the limitations and push the reader to think about how they would use the products in the event they decided to purchase one for the home.
If you stick with reading the article until the end, you might agree with their conclusion. They refer to another Times article “The Best Fire Extinguisher”, (Updated December 4, 2024) and they say “we recommend a 3A:40B:C extinguisher as your primary line of defense”. They also mention a specific brand of extinguisher with a 1A:10:B:C rating as a supplemental extinguisher.
Overall, the article is an interesting read and provides thought-provoking information. Also, if you are ever asked about these small spray cans being sold to homeowners for use on small fires, you’ll have a ready reference. Make sure to recommend reading the conclusion that recommends 3A:40B:C portable fire extinguishers for the home.”
Our experts agree that aerosol fire extinguishers are less reliable than traditional ones. Kincaid highlights the superior reliability of traditional extinguishers, while Warner suggests aerosols as supplements, not replacements. Due to regulatory differences in home and commercial products, Conroy supports traditional extinguishers as the primary defense. In conclusion, more fire protection products in the market are great, but there’s no substitute for a fire extinguisher at the end of the day.
Image via Michael Hession/NYT Wirecutter.
