BRK's Official Position Statement AGAINST Ionization Smoke Detectors
(1 rating)
Publisher's Description
BRK are the world’s largest smoke alarm manufacturer. When the truth about ionization smoke alarms started being exposed around 2005, and was not able to be covered up as in 1995 and 2000, BRK was promoting combination ionization/photoeletric alarms. “There’s two types of fires so you need both types of alarms” was what they and many other said. However, in general terms, there are two stages of fire and you MUST detect the fire in its earliest stage, when it is still smouldering, BEFORE the flaming stage when an ionization alarm may finally activate (if it has not been disconnected due to false alarms) and WHEN IT IS OFTEN FAR TOO LATE! In most cases with a flaming fire the person who has lit the fire is ‘intimate with the fire’ - in other words you just lit it so you do not need a smoke alarm to tell you so! After losing the landmark case, (Hackert v BRK, March 2008), and after three US States pass legislationmandating stand-alone photoelectric smoke alarms, BRK has finally changed its official position. BRK’s Position Statement explains why combination alarms are NOT safe - because of the false alarm issue - the same reason given by the IAFC in their 1980, Residential Smoke Alarm Report, 29 years and tens of thousands of needless deaths earlier.
Added By
Categories
business, people
Tags
science & technology / brk / ionization / smoke alarms / smoke detectors / classs action / photoelectric hackert v brk
Language
English
Privacy
Public (what does this mean?)
