CSIRO fails to warn of danger of Smoke Detectors
The following document was provided by the World Fire Safety Foundation (www.thewfsf.org) suggesting that the CSIRO have known for a long time that the technology used in a certain type of smoke detector (ionisation) fails to detect smoke!
The CSIRO has been responsible for the testing of Smoke Detectors in Australia but has failed to test the the ionisation type detector for its ability to detect smoke, apparently with the full knowledge that it would not pass Australian Standards, the theory is that if you do not test something for a particular purpose, then it cannot be found to be unsuitable for that purpose.
The CSIRO generates income from the testing and passing of smoke detection devices. Again this appears to be yet another example of the CSIRO putting its revenue above that of the safety and wellbeing of the Australian public.
The failure of the ionisation type smoke detectors to detect smoke from a smouldering fire where emissions can be up to three times the toxic level fatal to humans has been linked to the deaths of over 10,000 people in the US where the particular type of smoke detector is approved for sale and use. It is unknown how many Australian lives might have been saved had this information been conveyed to the public by a “trusted” science agency.
Fire Brigades across Australian recommend the use of the photoelectric type smoke detector
The paragraph specifically relating to the CSIRO is provided below:
I am also enclosing an email I received from the World Fire Safely Foundation in Australia. It
deals with the same Subject, failure to warn the public about an endangerment that has destroyed
many thousands of lives. The WFSF warned the Australian CSIRO of the dangers associated
with the ionization device years ago but CSIRO failed to warn the public. One of the facts
brought out by the WFSF is that the CSIRO testing of the ionization type “smoke detector” did
not require it to detect smoke. Does that not seem odd? Adrian Butler specifically points out that
this failure to warn could result in criminal charges against those who failed their Duty of Care
The full letter can be viewed below: