"Smoke alarms save lives. According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the number of U.S. home
fire deaths has been cut by about half since the mid-1970's, when smoke alarms first became widely available.
A fire's very nature makes it unpredictable. Because no one can know when a fire will occur or what type of fire
they will have in their home, virtually every recognized fire authority and safety expert -- including NFPA, the U.S.
Fire Administration (USFA), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) --
recommend having both photoelectric and ionization alarms for optimal protection against flaming and smoldering
fires. Kidde supports and states this recommendation on its packaging, website and in its owner's manuals.

Every Kidde smoke alarm -- regardless of technology -- must pass identical tests in order to meet the current smoke
alarm performance standard, UL 217."

"First Alert cannot comment on product testing done by third parties. Test results can be affected by many factors
and how the test was conducted. Test results are affected by product placement, the nature of the fire, air currents,
distance, air temperature, humidity, and many other factors. All relevant scientific studies of smoke alarms
recognize that ionization and photoelectric alarms may sound at different times depending on the type of fire.
However, these same studies found that either photoelectric or ionization alarms provide adequate time to escape
in most fires.

First Alert products are subject to rigorous internal testing on a frequent basis. We also meet or exceed standards
set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) / Underwriters Laboratories. The ANSI/UL's standards
result from stringent, independent testing and input from various interest parties, including fire services and
governmental agencies. That testing -- and the resulting standards -- is what consumers should look to in judging
product quality."

Kidde Claims (copied from above):

Kidde: "Smoke alarms save lives. According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the number of  U.S. home fire
            deaths has been cut by about half since the mid-1970's, when smoke alarms first became widely available.”

WFSF: Fire deaths have been cut in half since the 1970‘s but to imply it is because of smoke alarms is grossly misleading.
             Numerous factors such as less smoking, less cooking at home, safer electrical appliances, fire department education,
             elimination of kerosene heaters, improved medical procedures etc have led to the reduction in fire deaths. 

Kidde: “A fire's very nature makes it unpredictable. Because no one can know when a fire will occur or what type of fire they will
            have in their home, virtually every recognized fire authority and safety expert -- including NFPA, the U.S.  Fire
            Administration (USFA), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) --
            recommend having both photoelectric and ionization alarms for optimal protection against flaming and smoldering  fires.
            Kidde supports and states this recommendation on its packaging, website and in its owner's manuals.”

WFSF: False.  The official position of the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) covers almost all US and Canadian
            Fire Departments.  The official position of the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC)
            covers every Fire Brigade throughout Australia and New Zeland. Both the IAFF and AFC only recommend photoelectric
            smoke alarms.  They do NOT recommend combination ionization/photoelectric smoke alarms.
            More:  US/Canada    |   Australia/New Zealand

Kiddie: “Every Kidde smoke alarm -- regardless of technology -- must pass identical tests in order to meet the current smoke
             alarm performance standard, UL 217."

WFSF: If the UL217 test were a legitimate test then this would be a legitimate argument.  However, UL is currently being sued
            for their alleged fraudulent testing of ionization smoke alarms.
            More:  UL Lawsuit    |    Australia’s Flawed Smoke Alarm Standard   |   Australian & New Zealand Authorities Positions

First Alert Claims: (copied from above)

First Alert: "First Alert cannot comment on product testing done by third parties. Test results can be affected by many factors
                   and how the test was conducted. Test results are affected by product placement, the nature of the fire, air currents,
                   distance, air temperature, humidity, and many other factors. All relevant scientific studies of smoke alarms
                   recognize that ionization and photoelectric alarms may sound at different times depending on the type of fire.
                   However, these same studies found that either photoelectric or ionization alarms provide adequate time to
                   escape in most fires.”

WFSF: The official positions of both the IAFF and AFAC state: “Ionization smoke alarms may not operate in time to alert
             occupants early enough to escape from smoldering fires.”
             More:  US/Canada    |   Australia/New Zealand
      
First Alert:  “First Alert products are subject to rigorous internal testing on a frequent basis. We also meet or exceed standards
                   set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) / Underwriters Laboratories. The ANSI/UL's standards
                   result from stringent, independent testing and input from various interest parties, including fire services and
                   governmental agencies. That testing -- and the resulting standards -- is what consumers should look to in judging
                   product quality."

WFSF: If the UL217 test were a legitimate test then this would be a legitimate argument.  However, UL is currently being sued
            for their alleged fraudulent testing of ionization smoke alarms.
            More:  UL Lawsuit    |    Australia’s Flawed Smoke Alarm Standard    |   Australian & New Zealand Authorities Positions

WFSF Closing Comments:

In 1980 the International Association of Fire Chief’s (IAFC) ‘Residential Smoke Alarm Report’ warned against ionization smoke alarms stating they were not safe, that lives were at risk, and for Fire Chiefs to ONLY recommend photoelectric smoke alarms and heat alarms.  The IAFC also warned against combination ionization/photoelectric alarms due to increased cost with little benefit, and the false alarm problem inherent in ionization technology:
www.theWFSF.org/iafc    |    www.theWFSF.org/combocon

Tragically the IAFC’s message was no match for the marketing muscle of the ionization smoke alarm manufacturers.

In 2006, when the truth about ionization smoke alarms finally began to emerge with the testing conducted by the Barre City Fire Department, the smoke alarm manufacturers could no longer keep the truth from the public:
www.theWFSF.org/ffus

So what was the manufacturers response after selling their deadly ionization technology for three decades - when almost every home in the USA, Canada, Australia the U.K. and New Zealand only had ionization alarms installed - when most fire fighters knew next to NOTHING (through no fault of their own) about photoelectric smoke alarms?

“You don’t know what type of fire you are going to have so you need BOTH ionization AND photoelectric.”

From a money making and face saving perspective this is a brilliant solution for the manufacturers.

But is it the best solution for the public?

Should we Trust the Manufacturers or our Fire Departments?
Where were the manufacturers from 1980 - 2006?  Why didn’t they warn us about ionization alarms?  Should consumers now listen to the manufacturers who are desperately trying to cover their butts due to the thousands of needless deaths and injuries since 1980?

Or would it make more sense to take heed of the official (IAFF and AFAC) positions of our Fire Departments?