Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
The World Fire Safety Foundation
Problems viewing this page? Click Here > > >sorry.htmlshapeimage_3_link_0
 

- - - - - - - - - -  More Evidence  - - - - - - - - - -


- See:  ‘The S.A.F.E. Report’


- See:  The National Institute of Standards & Technology

- See:  Indiana’s, WTHR TV series -- ‘Deadly Delay’


- See:  ‘Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro -- Class Action Law Suit’


- See:  ‘Closing the Deadly Loophole in Australia’s Flawed Smoke Alarm Standard’

- See:  ‘Recommending, Selling or Installing Ionization Smoke Alarms, A Criminal Act of Negligence?’

CPSC’s Failure to Warn the Public

Bob Segall asks why the CPSC has failed to
warn the public when they have known about
the problem with ionization alarms since 1995.

Select video 3 for the “Deadly Delay” investigation

More > > >

The CAN Report
Sent to the CPSC by
registered mail, Feb, 2007

“Every single family in America, if they have a
smoke  detector in their  house, they’re affected
by this.

  The proof showed that sometimes the  ionization
detectors  would’t even go off at all, and yet they
continue to manufacture them, continue to sell
them, continue to stand by them.”

CPSC Under Fire in WTHR’s ‘Deadly Delay’ Investigation


Jim Hacker, Hacker & Murphy LLP
warning Americans after winning
landmark law suit, April 2007

World’s Largest Smoke Detector
Manufacturer Fined Punitive Damages

More > > >

    1. This CPSC ‘s study, (Jan, 1995)
      explains why ionization smoke

    2. detectors fail to activate in an
      unacceptably high number

    3. of fires in American homes.

CPSC’s 1995 Research Document
proving ionization detectors defective

The CPSC’s Fire Incident Study
January, 1995

CPSC Staff Concerned
“Notes from a CPSC meeting showing its own researchers expressed concerns about ionization smoke detectors that are unable to respond to a smoldering fire.”

Segall Challenges CPSC
“Here we are a decade later
and we’re still looking into it?”

CPSC Responds
“I think that the agency is very close
in taking its final stand in exactly what
will be communicated to the public.”

Congress Intervenes
“Indiana congressman Baron Hill
just introduced legislation that would
require CPSC to end its silence.”

Why, in 2010, is the CPSC still failing to warn the public about ionization alarms? “It’s Time to Warn the Public!”

More > > > 
nist.htmlshapeimage_15_link_0

    1. More > > >

Bob Segall - WHTR Investigative Reporter
“Indiana Sate fire officials . . . want to

change state law to require photoelectric

technology in all new homes.”

Here > > >

The following extracts are from ‘Deadly Delay’s’ CPSC Investigation:

Roger Johnson - State Fire Marshal
“Waiting to educate consumers and fire
fighters about ionization smoke

alarms is a dangerous choice.”

Overview
“The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the
public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of types
of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction.

  The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that
pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure children.”

NOTE: Above quote extracted from www.CPSC.gov  10 Jan, 2010

“The danger is fires are going to occur, people are going to die - we have to act as quickly as possible.”
Roger Johnson, Indiana State Fire Marshal, in WTHR’s ‘Deadly Delay’ UL investigation, Indiana, USA. April, 2007

NOTE:
1. ‘Warning the Public’ does not mean, attempting to deceive them by advising that ionization smoke alarms are OK and that combination ionization/photoelectric alarms are even better.
2. Since 1993, Australian Government scientific testing has proven that ionization smoke alarms should never have been allowed to pass ANY global testing standards.
3. The CPSC’s 1995 report details why combination alarms are not the solution (due to an unacceptable false alarm rate an admission by BRK, the world’s largest smoke alarm manufacturer).
4. Governments have a Duty of Care to warn the public about the proven deadly defects with ionization smoke alarms to bring to an end needless citizen and fire fighters deaths.
5. The above ‘Notes’ express the opinion of The World Fire Safety Foundation and are supported by evidence on the Foundation’s website: www.TheWorldFireSafetyFoundation.org

‘A Special Duty of Care’
When citizens are needless maimed or killed should those charged with a duty of care to protect us be held responsible?  Read the
S.A.F.E. Report’s ‘Special Duty of Care’ letter.

Here > > >

“ If you put people on notice that there’s a
 problem, and they ignore it, now they’re liable . . .”

Dean Dennis, ‘Father’s For Fire Safety’, Ohio, USA  March, 2009 

Given the weight of evidence surrounding the efficiency of different smoke alarm
types, it is not enough that standards, regulatory, and fire safety organisations
recommend photoelectric smoke alarms - they have a duty of care to warn the
public of the known, life-threatening limitations of ionization smoke alarms.

Karl Westwell, Co Founder, The World Fire Safety Foundation, from The KEY Report,
Tauranga, New Zealand  August, 2009

A Special Duty of Care

“This should be a no-brainer. If smoke detectors are
proven to be ineffective, why are they still being used?

   Chief Fleming rightly raised this question earlier this
year. I strongly urge the CPSC to immediately provide
answers to his concerns as well as to consider the
potential loss of life when Americans are using
inadequate and unsafe smoke detectors.”

Senator John Carey

More > > >

. . . Americans are
using inadequate
and unsafe
smoke detectors
”
“