The World Fire Safety Foundation
City Council Liability Concerns:
Ionization Smoke Alarms
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)

Are Californian City Councils (CCC), ABC7 and Home Depot aware that Kidde are named
as defendants in the Proposed Ionization Smoke Alarm Class Action Law Suit?  (see below)

Do CCC know Kidde succeeded at blocking legislation mandating photoelectric smoke
alarms in Tennessee after Tennessee’s, News Channel 5 claimed manufacturers
were “more interested in making money than saving lives”?
(see ‘Smoke Alarm Recall’)

Kidde Smoke Alarm Packaging Discussed in
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand
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)

Given both Albany & Palo Alto City Councils have formally acknowledged the serious limitations with ionization smoke alarms, could Bay Area Fire Departments consider:

  1. -investigating all Bay Area fire deaths and injuries over the past ten years to see how many deaths may have been contributed to by the failure of ionization alarms to sound a timely warning, and disconnection due to incessant false alarming.

  2. -requesting Kidde replace all ionization smoke alarms given away under their ‘Operation Save-A-Life’ marketing scheme with photoelectric smoke alarms? and

  3. -assist the World Fire Safety Foundation in requesting Kidde disclose the level of smoke that their ionization smoke alarms activate under Australia’s flawed Smoke Alarm Standard?  (manufacturers refuse to provide this information).

Are City Councils & Fire Departments Aware of Revelations about Kidde and other
Ionization Smoke Alarm Manufacturers in the Proposed Class Action Law Suit?

Kidde Safety Inc.

‘Operation Save A Life’

Marketing Campaign

Why are some San Francisco Bay Area Cities
STILL Permitting “Deadly” Ionization Smoke Detectors
to be Given away to their Citizens without Full Disclosure?cbs.htmlshapeimage_8_link_0

‘Operation Save A Life’ Chicago

Video footage of San Francisco Bay Area launch of Kidde’s
‘Operation Save A Life’ Marketing Campaign is:  Here > > >

A Special Duty Of Care
Given the overwhelming scientific evidence against ionization smoke alarms, do Californian Fire  Departments have a Special Duty of Care to stop promoting them, and warn residents of their known and deadly limitations and the safe alternatives?

"I call for the immediate removal of the fraudulent, “deadly”, ionization so-called smoke alarm from all stores and
homes before more people are
needlessly maimed or killed.”
Chief Marc McGinn
Albany Fire Dept, CA, USA
Is Menlo Park Fire Department Promoting Ionization Smoke Alarms?
More > > >

Images extracted from a Kidde TV
commercial that aired in the
San Francisco Bay Area,
November, 2010

Are Californian Fire Departments and City Councils aware Underwriter’s Laboratories
have been accused of  ‘Scientific Misconduct’ (fraudulent scientific testing)
regarding their ‘UL Listed’ ionization smoke alarms?

Are “Deadly” Ionization smoke alarms STILL being promoted* AFTER Albany and
Palo Alto City Councils voted 5-0 and 9-0 respectively to mandate PHOTOELECTRIC Smoke Alarms?
Are City Councils & Fire Departments Victims of and
Accomplices to California’s Ionization Smoke Alarm Fraud?
*PROBLEM: Given most ionization smoke alarm packaging states that for maximum protection consumers should have both ionization and photoelectric alarms (even though photoelectric-only smoke alarms are sufficient), and Ionization alarms have been proven to have dangerous defects, do City Councils and Fire Departments have a Duty of Care to disclose to consumers they must supplement their ionization smoke alarms with a photoelectric?  (see ‘A Special Duty of Care’ below)
SOLUTION: Request Kidde and others only provide PHOTOELECTRIC smoke alarms.

1. The ‘Two Types of Fire’ Fraud
“There are two types of fire so you need two types of smoke alarms.”
This is a very clever but deceitful and grossly misleading marketing scam.
In most fires there are two stages of fire, smouldering and flaming.
You only need one type of smoke alarm - a photoelectric.
Research Proves:
- Photoelectric alarms detect BOTH smouldering AND flaming fires in sufficient time to safely escape, and
- Ionization smoke alarms may not operate in time to alert occupants early enough to escape from smouldering fires.
You must detect fire in the critical smouldering stage, before it transforms into a flaming fire when it is often too late.

2. Why does the International Association of Fire Chiefs say “Yes” to ionization/photoelectric
    combination alarms when the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) say “No”?
The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) discovered the truth about ionization alarms in 1980 and
warned they could “take no other course but to recommend the installation of PHOTOELECTRIC smoke
detectors.”  The IAFC also warned against combination ionization/photoelectric alarms due to increased cost
and increased false alarms and not combine an ionization sensor with a perfectly adequate photoelectric sensor.

3. Fraudulent ‘Scientific’ Testing Exposed
What is the Reason for the Misinformation and Cover-Up?
Why Don’t those Paid to Protect us Know/Want to Admit Ionization Alarms have Dangerous Defects?
It is a stunning story spanning forty years.  To help answer these questions visit our Underwriters Laboratories (UL) webpage. UL allegedly created a fraudulent test allowing ionization ‘product of combustion’ alarms to be ‘certified as safe’.  
Sound hard to believe?  Check out the ‘Open Letters’ below . . .
Could City Councils Be Held Liable When Their Fire Departments 
Provide or Promote Ionization Smoke Alarms Without Full Disclosure?
Credit Austin Walsh
More > > >california.htmlshapeimage_27_link_0
4. The ‘Open Letters’ - Exposing California’s Ionization Smoke Alarm Fraud:
    Open Letters to Governor Schwarzenegger, Maria Shriver & Oprah
Disagree - Why?