26 March, 2011! ! ! ! ! !

by Email & Certified Mail

Vickie Sakamoto, Division Chief, Cal Fire

State Fire Marshalʼs Smoke Alarm Task Force
Office of the California State Fire Marshal
1131 S Street, Sacramento, CA 95811, USA

Ionization Smoke Alarms Sold in California Must Carry the State

Fire Marshalʼs Seal which Mandates Allegedly Flawed UL Testing

Dear Chief Sakamoto

Chief Marc McGinn asked I contact you (see page 2) concerning your request for
information about photoelectric-specific smoke alarm legislation in the U.S.A.
The World Fire Safety Foundation (WFSF) lists smoke alarm legislation on our website:
www.theWFSF.org/legislation Billions of ionization smoke alarms have been sold globally.
Despite their deadly defects, and existing and pending litigation, some manufacturers and
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) have lobbied against photoelectric-specific legislation.
A pending class action law suit describes some ionization smoke alarm manufacturerʼs
conduct as “deceptive and unconscionable”. However, three Ohioan Councils have just
enacted mandatory photoelectric-only legislation due to the inherent problems with
combination ionization/photoelectric smoke alarms, the compromised solution proffered by
those who have failed to warn the public, and our firefighters, since the full extent of the
problem was published in the ʻInternational Fire Chiefʼ Magazine in September 1980.
Ohioan legislation has been inspired by the work of Fathers For Fire Safety (FFFS) who
recently received awards for educating the public and private sectors about photoelectric
smoke alarms. Dean Dennis from FFFS can provide the statistics/data you requested.
His contact details - phone: (513) 379 8838, Email: ddennis1111@gmail.com.
Most ionization smoke alarms sold in the USA, and all those sold in California, are
subjected to Underwriters Laboratories (UL) smoke alarm standard, UL217*. It has been
alleged that lives have been lost as UL217 is dangerously flawed: www.theWFSF.org/ul
Does the CSFM test ionization smoke alarms independently when issuing itʼs
mandatory ʻSeal of Approvalʼ (see below) or does it rely on ULʼs testing?
Unlike UL, Standards Australia Ltd has formally acknowledged Australiaʼs smoke alarm
standard is also flawed. However, the empirical scientific evidence proving ionization
AUSTRALIA smoke alarms are not fit for purpose, and should never have been allowed to pass any
23 Ocean Grove
safety standards, continues to be withheld by smoke alarm manufacturers.
Currumbin, QLD 4223
AUSTRALIA Chief McGinn will be touring Australia in May of this year with the WFSF. We will be
P +61 (0) 409 782 166
E ab@TheWFSF.org
requesting disclosure by manufacturers of the level of smoke their ionization smoke alarms
activated under Australian Standard 3786. Please watch our film, ʻSmoke Alarm Recallʼ,
CANADA which exposes the global problem with flawed smoke alarm standards: www.theWFSF.org
Emergency Mgmnt Office
Fanshaw College, Ontario Chief Sakamoto, I will call you again about the WFSF assisting your Task Force with empirical
CANADA N5Y 5R6 scientific evidence from Australian Government testing to help resolve this issue globally.
P +1 519 452 4430 ext 2948
F +1 519 451 0513 Sincerely,
CSFMʼs ʻSeal of Approvalʼ
E sc@TheWFSF.org
required on ionization smoke
UNITED STATES alarms sold in California
PO Box 196
Citrus Heights
CA 95611-0196 USA
P +1 916 721 7700
Adrian Butler
E rp@theWFSF.org The World Fire Safety Foundation
Chairman, Co-Founder, former full-time fire fighter

*All ionization smoke alarms sold in California must carry the California State Fire Marshalʼs Seal (CSFMS)
which mandates compliance with UL217. Governor Schwarzeneggerʼs letter of December 2010 gives an
in-depth historical analysis of the problem with the CSFMS and its mandatory UL217 compliance.

CSFMTaskForceLetter26March11.pdf | Check for the latest version, with live Internet links at: www.theWFSF.org/legislation2 1 of 2
 From: Marc McGinn <MMcGinn@albanyca.org>
Sent: 5:21 AM (GMT-07:00), 17 March 2011 05:21
To: ab@thewfsf.org
Subject: FW: FYI

Adrian,

Could you help on this?

--------------------------------

From: Vickie Sakamoto

Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 12:06 PM
To: Marc McGinn
Cc: Ruben Grijalva (calfire@gmail.com)
Subject: RE: FYI

Marc,

For part of the research/statistics the group might want to see who/how many cities/states have banned
ionization and require photoelectric. I think you could bring this question to the group or I can at the next
meeting. I think the group would be interested in their statistics/data, etc. they used for their justification.

Vickie Sakamoto, Division Chief

CAL FIRE
Office of the State Fire Marshal
(916) 324-4770 Fax (916) 445-8128
vickie.sakamoto@fire.ca.gov

--------------------------------

From: Marc McGinn [mailto:MMcGinn@albanyca.org]

Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 11:03 AM
To: Sakamoto, Vickie
Subject: FW: FYI

Vickie,

Do we take under consideration what is happening around the U.S? Currently three cities in Ohio have
mandated photo only. This town will become the fourth next month.

--------------------------------

From: Dean Dennis [mailto:ddennis1111@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 6:27 AM
To: Adrian Butler; Marc McGinn
Subject: FYI

In addition to another Ohio city, other people are getting the message.

http://hillcrest.patch.com/articles/mayfield-village-providing-free-smoke-detectors-for-apartments

CSFMTaskForceLetter26March11.pdf | Check for the latest version, with live Internet links at: www.theWFSF.org/legislation2 2 of 2