The World Fire Safety Foundation
Chicago 5 of 6
Problems viewing this page? Click  Here > > >sorry.htmlshapeimage_3_link_0
I.  Introduction
2.  . . . When consumers purchase stand-alone smoke detectors, Defendants fail to adequately advise consumers that alternative “photoelectric” devices provide earlier warning – typically by 30 minutes or more – against the most dangerous fires, that the devices are priced similarly to “ionization-only” devices, and that “ionization-only” devices should not be used alone in any home. By reason of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, millions of American homeowners have purchased fire-alarm systems, not knowing that their purchase inadequately protects their home and families against deadly fire.  . . .
(extracted from page 1)
     B.   Defendants Manufacture and Sell Two Types of Smoke Detectors
           3.   Defendant Continue to Sell Ionization-only Detectors Without Adequately Informing Consumers of the Detectors‘
                 Insensitivity to Smoldering Fires
                 b. Defendant Kidde . . .
. . .  55.  Kidde fails to warn consumers that their ionization-only detectors should never be used alone and that photoelectric or combination detectors provide superior protection at a comparable price. Kidde fails to inform consumers that a combination detector would provide full protection at a price that is cheaper than purchasing two detectors with separate technologies.  Kidde fails to inform consumers that smoldering fires can be far more deadly than flaming fires given their ability to produce poisonous gases long before creating visible flames and that they often occur at times when people sleep. Kidde fails to inform consumers that ionization-only detectors can lag behind photoelectric-only and combination detectors by an hour or more in detecting the presence of a deadly smoldering fire. This information is highly material to a consumer’s decision as to which product to purchase and failure to provide such information in clear, unequivocal and conspicuous language while continuing to sell ionization-only detectors is unfair and deceptive.
(extracted from page 18)

John Brooks, Commissioner, C.F.D.
Launching ‘Operation Save A Life’ 2009

Is the Chicago Fire Department (CFD) aware that
Underwriter’s Laboratories, have been accused of
Scientific Misconduct’ (fraudulent scientific testing)
regarding their ‘UL Listed’ smoke alarms?

How many of the thousands of smoke detectors
donated by Kidde over the past six years are ionization?

Is the Chicago Fire Department and ABC7
aware that Kidde AND BRK are two of the four
manufacturers named in the
Proposed Ionization Smoke Alarm Class Action Law Suit?

Does the CFD know Kidde succeeded at stopping
legislation mandating photoelectric smoke alarms
in Tennessee after a declaration on Tennessee TV
that manufacturers were “more interested in making
money than saving lives”? (see ‘Smoke Alarm Recall’)

Kidde Smoke Alarm Packaging
HBSS Proposed Class Action Law Suit
27 April, 2010 - see extract below

Abstracts from Hagens Berman Sobol And Shapiro’s Proposed Class Action Law Suit
Second Amended Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand’  27 April, 2010   (emphasis added)

Would it make sense for the  Chicago Fire Department and the City of Chicago to:

  1. -investigate all fire deaths and injuries over the past ten years?

  2. -instead of helping promote Kidde’s ionization smoke alarms, request Kidde to immediately replace all these ionization smoke alarms given away under their ‘Operation Save-A-Life’ marketing scheme with safe and effective photoelectric smoke alarms? and

  3. -ask Kidde why they have failed to respond to the World Fire Safety Foundation’s ‘Smoke Alarm Disclosure Letter’’?

Are Chicagoans and the Chicago Fire Department Aware of Revelations
about Kidde in the Proposed Ionization Smoke Alarm Class Action Law Suit?

‘Operation Save A Life’

Is “Zero Deaths” Possible Promoting “Deadly Smoke Detectors”?cbs.htmlshapeimage_8_link_0

The Terri Stewart Story

Chicago’s ‘Erin Brockovitch’s Fight for What’s
Right and How it Can Make YOUR Family Safer!

Operation Save A Life

Who is Kidde Kidding?

Video footage of the official 2009 launch is: HERE > > >

Emily Barr, President & General Manager, ABC7
‘Operation Save A Life’ Sponsors

Has UL Deceived YOU?:  Chicago_1

UL - Flawed Testing?:  Chicago_2

The UL Letters:  Chicago_3

Chicago_4:  Misleading Marketing?

Chicago_5:  ‘Operation Save-A-Life’

Chicago_6:  The Terri Stewart Story

Has UL Deceived YOU?:  Chicago 1

UL - Flawed Testing?:  Chicago 2

The UL Letters:  Chicago 3

Chicago 4:  Misleading Marketing?

Chicago 5:  ‘Operation Save-A-Life’

Chicago 6:  The Terri Stewart Story

Amy Rupert, PR Specialist, Kidde Safety Inc.
promoting Kidde’s “deadly smoke detectors

It is not the City of Chicago or the Chicago Fire Departments fault that they have been promoting ionization
smoke alarms when they are unaware of their inherent defects.

However, given the overwhelming scientific evidence against ionization alarms, does the Chicago Fire
Department has a Special Duty of Care to stop promoting them, to warn their Chicagoans of their known and
deadly limitations, and advise them of the safe, available and affordable alternatives?

Commissioner John Brooks, Chicago Fire Department

“Education and fire safety awareness is extremely important to the Chicago Fire Department.
It is our duty and our responsibility as a department to save lives and to help with prevention.”

Commissioner Brooks