Five Years

of

Failing to Warn
Fire Industry Open Letter about the
Deadly Ionization Smoke Alarm Fraud

Fire Services have known the ionization alarms

have failed Australian Standards since 1993.
The code was improved but never adopted
allowing manufacturers to keep selling them.
Darren Curtis, Senior Reporter, Channel 9 News
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia | 11 May 2011
Darren Curtis

www.theWFSF.org/tourstory2

5YearsOfFailingToWarnV1.3. pdf
This living document is subject to change. | Check for the latest version at: www.theWFSF.org/5years

1 of 3

01 June, 2011
Mr Lee Johnson!!
!
!
!
!
Commissioner, Queensland Fire & Rescue Service,
President, Australasian Fire & Emergency Service Authorities Council
Cnr Park Rd & Kedron Park Rd,
Kedron, Brisbane, Queensland 4031
by Email

Good Morning Commissioner

An Open Letter to the QFRS Commissioner & AFAC President

Its Time to Tell the Public the Truth

Today is the 5thanniversaryof the publication of the Australasian Fire & Emergency
Service Authorities Council (AFAC) official position on smoke alarms. AFAC is the peak
representative body of all Australasian Fire Brigades. AFACs official position states:
That all residential accommodation be fitted with photoelectric smoke alarms . . .
Ionization smoke alarms may not operate in time to alert occupants early enough to
escape from smouldering fires.
www.theWFSF.org/positions
The QFRS wrote to the World Fire Safety Foundation in 2005 suggesting we take the issue
about ionization smoke alarms being defective up with Standards Australia. We did.
We advised Standards Australia we believed the Standard (AS3786) was dangerously
flawed and that ionization alarms should never have been allowed to pass the standard.
After Standards Australia investigated they discovered the Standard has a deadly loophole
which has allowed ionization smoke alarms to be certified as safe since 1993. Due to this
loophole, ionization alarms do not have to pass the test for visible smoke. However, they
are subjected to it and smoke levels must be recorded and reported to the manufacturers.
In our film, Smoke Alarm Recall (www.TheWFSF.org), Mr David Isaac from the committee
that oversees the Australias smoke alarm standard states Standards Australia discovered
to their horror that ionization smoke alarms do not activate until to 2-3 times the maximum
safe limit set for photoelectric smoke alarms.

AUSTRALIA
P.O. Box 170
Wondai, QLD 4660
AUSTRALIA
P +61 (0) 409 782 166
E ab@TheWFSF.org
CANADA
Emergency Mgmnt Office
Fanshaw College, Ontario
CANADA N5Y 5R6
P +1 519 452 4430 ext 2948
F +1 519 451 0513
E sc@TheWFSF.org
UNITED STATES
PO Box 196
Citrus Heights
CA 95611-0196
USA
P +1 916 721 7700
E rp@TheWFSF.org

Flawed Standard Acknowledged

Standards Australia have formally acknowledged the Standard is flawed. They published a
corrected draft standard in August 2008. Under the corrected Standard ionization alarms
are no longer just subjected to the valid test for smoke, they must pass it. However, the
corrected standard has been stopped from passing into legislation:
www.theWFSF.org./abcb
The CSIRO tests smoke alarms for Standards Australia. They hold the scientific test data
showing the level of smoke that ionization alarms activate in the Standards testing. The
World Fire Safety Foundation has requested manufacturers disclose this information for
over two years. In every case they refuse to respond to the written requests. We believe
this information is sufficient to ban and recall ionization alarms which is why, we believe
manufacturers refuse to respond.
Lead Story - Channel 9 News
On the 10th of May, in the 6pm News lead story, Channel 9s senior reporter, Darren Curtis
stated, Fire Services have known the ionization alarms have failed Australian Standards
since 1993*. The code was improved but never adopted allowing manufacturers to keep
selling them . . . The QFRS will spend $600,000 next month for a mail out to every home
urging a change to photoelectric alarms as soon as possible. Photoelectric is a better
option for a broader range of fires. www.theWFSF.org/tourstory2

5YearsOfFailingToWarnV1.3. pdf
This living document is subject to change. | Check for the latest version at: www.theWFSF.org/5years

2 of 3

Advising the public ionization smoke alarms are better than photoelectric is NOT the solution. Why? Because
they are convinced their existing ionization alarms are fine because of frequent false alarms which lull people
into a false sense of security. Unless the public are told the truth about their existing alarms, that they have
known and dangerous defects, most of them will do absolutely nothing. This is exactly why, five years after the
AFACs official position on smoke alarms was published, almost every existing home in Queensland, and almost
all new homes, are still fitted with ionization alarms.
After 5 years of failing to adequately warn the public that ionization alarms have dangerous defects it is time for
the QFRS et al to discover the facts and properly examine the evidence once and for all. Clause 2.1 of AS3786
states, The smoke alarm shall be designed to respond reliably to the presence of smoke. Ionization alarms
can NOT do that. AFACs own position statement (page 1) admits it, and the CSIROs empirical scientific
evidence, if requested by the QFRS, will prove it beyond any doubt.
QFRS Request for Disclosure
May I suggest the QFRS writes to PDL and request disclosure of the level of smoketheir PDLSD100 ionization
smoke alarms, that were installed in the sleeping areas of the new Burpengary Fire Station, activated under the
Australian Standard.
If CSIRO evidence proves ionization alarms are unable to activate until 2-3 times the maximum acceptable safe
level of smoke set by Standards Australia, this would provide a compelling case for them to be immediately
banned and recalled from all residential applications.
Therefore, may we humbly suggest the QFRS consider holding off on the proposed $600,000 photoelectrics
are a better option letter until disclosure of ionization alarm smoke activation levels by manufacturers, i.e. for
the QFRS themselves to request disclosure: www.theWFSF.org/sadl
What has the QFRS got to lose by writing a simple letter to PDL?
The Foundation believes doing so will save Queenslander's lives and help bring an end to the global ionization
smoke alarm fraud.
Please advise.
Thank you.
Sincerely,

The World Fire Safety Foundation

Adrian Butler
Chairman, former fire fighter

P.O. Box 170, Wondai

QLD 4606, AUSTRALIA
*Note: The CSIROarguesionization smoke alarms don't have to pass the test for smoke (15% light obs/m) that
photoelectric alarms have to pass, even though they have empirical scientific evidence proving they can
not pass it. Herein lies Australias Smoke Alarm Standards'deadly loophole'.
Encl: The Volunteer Fire Fighter Magazine, Summer 2010. Please read the article on pages 20 - 24 titled,
Why are the Public Still Not Being Told the Truth about Smoke Alarms? This article has been
updated and is available on the World Fire Safety Foundations website: www.theWFSF.org/vffa

5YearsOfFailingToWarnV1.3. pdf
This living document is subject to change. | Check for the latest version at: www.theWFSF.org/5years

3 of 3