The Fire/Smoke and Carbon Monoxide
Evacuation Systems that will save lives!

A secret has recently been exposed that has been kept from the public for thirty years.  The ionization type of smoke alarm supposedly protecting almost every American home will NOT safely detect smoldering fires, the type of fire that commonly kills.  Hard to believe?  What did the Indiana State Fire Marshal say?

“…this may well be the most vital life safety issue of our time.”

State Fire Marshal Roger Johnson, Indiana State Fire Chiefs Convention, Marriot Hotel, Indianapolis, Indiana
Sept 12, 2007

We all know what a nuisance our smoke alarms can be when we burn the toast or take a shower.  However, a recent discovery in Australia has shown that ionization alarms should NOT have been allowed to pass any global fire safety standards.  What did David Isaac, Australian Standards smoke alarm committee member, say?

“Ionization alarms are dangerous because they lull people into a false sense of security.”

David Isaac, Australian Standards FP002 Committee Member, from the ’Aquarium Test’ film at www.AquariumTest.com

When the world’s largest smoke alarm manufacturer was fined M$16.3M in 1998 for “failing to disclose the known limitations of the detector to the consumer”, in his summation, the Judge said:

“A smoke detector that sounds approximately 19 minutes after smoke reached its sensing chamber is like an airbag that does not deploy until 19 minutes after a car accident.”

Hon. David E Schoenthaler, Mercer vs. BRK Inc.
April, 1998

BRK were fined punitive damages, appealed and settled out of court.  Is BRK or any other ionization smoke alarm manufacturer ever going to tell the public that their alarms are dangerous?  No - it would be commercial suicide.  So what’s the industry’s solution?  Let’s combine the dangerous ionization alarm with the safe photoelectric alarm.  If the industry gets away with their ’solution’ this will ensure continued profits but it will also guarantee continued needless deaths.  What did The International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) say 27 years ago?

“The subcommittee does not think the combination [ionization/photoelectric] detector is best, for a number of reasons. . . what is to be gained by adding an ionization element to a good photoelectric element?  In the subcommittee’s opinion, nothing.  In fact, the subcommittee believes there are at least two disadvantages:  1. Cost – why add anything that will not improve the performance?  2. False alarm potential.”

IAFC’s Smoke Detector Subcommittee, ’Residential Smoke Alarm Report’, The International Fire Chief Magazine
September1980

What is the solution?  What did the World Fire Safety Foundation say?

“The global public is poised to discover that the ionization alarms supposedly protecting their families for the past 30 years are dangerous.  The industry’s ionization/photoelectric combination alarm is profit-friendly and face-saving, but it is a family-slaughtering solution.  As a former fire-fighter, I’d like to congratulate L.I.F.E. on your revolutionary, laser guided photoelectric smoke alarms/fire evacuation system which will save countless lives and provide added protection for our fire-fighters.”

“Before you ponder the solution, make yourself fully aware of the problem by watching the World Fire Safety Foundation’s free film at www.AquariumTest.com.  In just 12 minutes you will see for yourself why your smoke alarms are dangerous. . . then visit www.life-support-technologiesllc.com and discover the revolutionary new benchmark in affordable and safe smoke alarms for your home or business.

Adrian Butler, Chairman, World Fire Safety Foundation, Gold Coast, Australia
September 2007