<<<  7 of 39  >>>

The Vermont State Legislature recently approved Senate Bill 226 requiring photoelectric-type smoke alarms to be installed in new and existing single-family homes. This bill was signed by Governor Jim Douglas on Thursday May 29, 2008 for passage into law. Massachusetts already abides by a state law that mandates the usage of photoelectric smoke alarms near specified rooms. Similar legislation is pending in Tennessee House Bill 2528 and Senate Bill 2600. Smoke sensing technology type policy discussions are also being discussed in Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Utah, and California.

Clearly there is a growing consensus within state legislatures as well as the fire service community that favors photoelectric technology. First Alert has played a crucial role in a tremendous industry effort to inform consumers on the importance of the home safety technologies; and more specifically the differences between smoke sensing technologies. In light of recent studies and ongoing industry-performed field research regarding the comparison of photoelectric and ionization smoke alarms, First Alert is offering the following two scientifically substantiated determinations:

1 of 2 . . .

(c) Copyright July 09

Next we will see a slide of how the major companies are reacting.

You first need to be aware that these companies are trying to duck major liabilities.

These companies have lost major court cases such as the Hackert case and the Mercer case in which millions were awarded to the plantif’s and the judgments stated that their products (ionization alarms) failed to protect the victims and the companies had reasonable knowledge that they would fail to protect.  Were you aware of the Class Action Law Suit against the four largest ionization smoke alarm manufacturers?

These companies can not come out and state that the 90 plus % of ionization detectors in homes need to move towards photoelectric because of liability issues.  Instead they are sending this letter out to anyone that is promoting photoelectric alarms.  Note that they are in essence take the burden off fire officials by stating that they are tired of ionization detectors becoming disabled due to their high nuisance alarm rate.

I then tell my story of how I called First Alert when I ordered a box of photoelectric alarms and note they stated on the outside of the packaging “Reduces Kitchen Nuisance Alarms.”  I called BRK and asked, “Where in my house should I move my ionization alarm instead of using a photoelectric?”  They told me “Placement of detector instructions is inside the packaging.”  I told them it stated the same placement inside the packaging for the ionization and the photoelectric, so “Where is a better place to mount the ionization detector?”

They told me they couldn’t answer that question and I would have to put it in writing.  After a week of calling, emailing my question of “Where is a better place in my house to place an ionization alarm over a photoelectric?”  they finally said,  “Mr. Dennis you know we are not going to answer that question and we know who you are, you you are one of those guys in Ohio that’s trying to change the legislation.  We’ll send you out a letter of support.”

(I had been transferred to three departments in one week by the time BRK came clean!)

BRK - Position on Photoelectric Legislation