Complaint For Change For Better Public Safety In Maryland

0 have signed. Let’s get to 5,000!


The Maryland state Fire Marshal Endangers The Public This Must Stop!!!

Note : almost 100% have ionization a type scientifically proven to be conclusively unfit for purpose (even though may go off while cooking or taking a shower  and also a member of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA )has confessed that the combination Alarm is not a safer alternative technology to ionization look at the NIST Graph Please and see the response times . ( About 10% have photoelectric ) the number of both is unknown. https://www.scribd.com/document/358120872/Fire-DetectorRiskAnalysisTexasAandM95

The Maryland state Fire Marshall's tells people there is no justifiable reason to ban ionization technology even though they acknowledged a report saying it is defective.  This is not public expectation of safety to tell people to fail to warn of the defectivness of an unsafe product they know the safety certification lab has been sued and refuse to warn the public and they also argue if I have a compliant I should take it up with the NFPA which I did and they said that my proposal to ban Product should be taken Up With UL so I told them I would plan to take it up with UL and they refuse to accept the answer of the NFPA ( UL has has acknowledged the flawed standard so should a dangerous product be banned ?? )I guess they don't care whether they provide misleading information or not they argue there is no justifiable reason to ban ionization alarms yet they acknowledged a report that says there is and they continually tell the public there is a product they know is defective is not defective they have been provided with adequate evidence of defect yet think it is adequate to fail to tell the public the truth.  ( Providing misleading information about the effectiveness of a life safety device could be possibly be deemed a criminal act of negligence and or a felony!!!! )They have known since September 2013 if not earlier and they are still telling the public it is acceptable and refuse to warn the public that ionization smoke alarm technology is dangerous & that UL has been sued for alleged scientific misconduct and they argue they support the findings of the NFPA which is untrue because the NFPA says is it dangerous and being given adequate evidence of the dangers of Ionization technology they refuse to warn the public this can not go on why don't you look at the enclosed video and decide for your self if you think It defective they argue my complaint should be taken up with the NFPA but the following are on the NFPA and have already Acknowledged it dangerous well the CPSC has confessed its dangerous and UL has acknowledged the Problem NFPA committee Member Kidde they manufacturer Fire extinguishers has confessed there ionization smoke alarms will go off only at dangerous levels of smoke so there there arguments are being deemed invalid and The  Fire Extinguisher manf BRK make smoke alarms & has stated they will support any state wanting to move toward photoelectric technology. The Maryland state fire marhsal is failing to warn the public that the ionization alarm has about 20% failure in flaming fires and about 60 %)( some tests may show about 80% )failure in smoldering fires ( Texas A & M Fault Analysis Report here : ) they are refusing to tell the public also that ionization technology has high false alarms the most common reason for a disable and that photoelectric has fewer false alarms and has an approximate failure of about 4% for smoldering and flaming fires( and few false alarms) they failed to disclose these facts when asked about smoke alarms they are right one point you may not have to ban a defective product. ( They argue the support the findings of the nfpa which they say yet they refuse to warn the public of the below report, they are a state embarassement that they say they support the finding of the NFPA when the U.S. Gov't Building Fire Research Lab NIST Is a Member of the NFPA and they have confessed its dangerous)Where they are wrong is that you must give people all the facts so that they can make an informed decision on how to best protect there family from fire so also they argue that there are a few very vocal indiviudals that say only photo electric should be used but the states Of Iowa, Ohio, Massachusetts, Vermont ,Maine, And New York City have already recognized the dangers of deadly ionization technology  and they also with held the fact that one of the U.S,'s biggest firefighters's union's The IAFF 300,000 member only recommends photoelectric only . The Maryland state fire Marshal refuses to ban Please have congress to force the Maryland state fire marshal to stop telling people ionization alarms are not defective even though they know dangerous and also force them to tell the public the truth did you know it could be deemed a felony to misrepresent a fact about a life safety device if it results in deaths? Yes, it is true they have stated that ionization is more effective in flaming fires and that photo electric is more effective in smoldering but they withheld the fact that the above states have already mandated against ionization technology remember the fire marshal is right on one point you may NOT HAVE TO BAN IONIZATION  but it is critical to have to MANDATE PHOTOELECTRIC  as public expectation of safety !!!  I want congress to please force a change in legislation and require the fire department to tell the pubic the truth and they also withheld the failure rates from above from the Texas A & M Fault Analysis Report strangely the fire marshals report was made with out acknowledging the above mentioned fault analysis report.  which is noted here : 

- ( Does it sound illogical you that they are recommending a life safety devices while ignoring findings of the building fire research lab and or not using to the fault analysis report in their asssement ? The people are entitled to know why this information was withheld  ) Note : the combination ionization-photoelectric  alarm may be just as dangerous as the ionization alarm.  please note the result here may have to be pasted  https://www.scribd.com/document/357478430/NIST-Alarm-Response-Times-Compressed      But the fire Marshal argues take it up with the NFPA While it sounds reasonable the NFPA has stated it is dangerous in smoldering fires The Following NFPA have said ionization  is dangerous The U.S. Gov't  Building Fire Research Lab (NIST ), Kidde, UL The CPSC and others I really recommend you check out the site www.getsafealarms.com and it will explain more the reasons Ionization technology must be banned.

He also feels it is acceptable to embarass the state by ignoring a finding of the Maryland U.S Governent Fire Research Lab which is Part of the NFPA yet thinks it is acceptable to withhold the known limitations of the device from the people!!!! Which they have stated is dangerous and he claims he supports!!!! http

Note The MD State fire marshal has acknowledged this following report and thinks it is acceptable to fail to warn the public. https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/05/09/StatementfortheRecordWG1finalsmokealarmstatement.pdf

an additional report proving Ionization is in unsafe in smoldering fires is here :

IAFC 1980 https://www.scribd.com/document/359647440/IAFC-1980-Residential-Smoke-Compressed

I Especially Need Congress to ask them if the product they claim is "safe"

is " as safe " as they Claim demand congress ask them why they don't Ban ionization technology?? Why Do you think it it acceptable to promote something that caused Nathan Mercer To Have to Bust Through the wall of his Duplex to rescue his children? ( and why does he hate to provide accurate complete scientifically valid information to the people ?( I think I am entitled to an answer to this question )Does that sound safe to you? ( I mean Does it seem like public expectation of safety to promote such a device ?) ( he should have no trouble logically answering that question logically if he does it must be obvious that safety is not the highest priority on his list for those that actually believe that public safety is important  I have asked had no trouble answering that Nathan Mercer should Never have had to bust through the wall of his duplex to rescue his children. ) Its quite possible this scenario could have been repeated many times by now they argue to make proposal to the NFPA I should not have to make a proposal for them to properly protect the people ( Its their job) ( and I am going to ask you another question if they argue there is a debate and that they do support the findings of the NFPA why when I mentioned facts to a member of the NFPA does the NFPA Member not want to make argue against me and he actually said he was disappointed I have knowledge it is not a good public safety example to say you support an organization whose job is to keep people safe and then endanger the public ( Safety should be based on scientific facts that keep people safe not a fire marshals report that clearly states & acknowledges that a product is dangerous than that fact be concealed and the report also does not include the failure rates of the life safety devices it seems totally illogical to make a life safety report that makes no consideration for the failure rates of a life safety device .  my taxes are paying them for a service I am not getting. Please join me in asking them to stop providing misleading information.( in December 2007 Deputy Chief Fleming Boston (UL 217  ) said I believe it is responsible fo as many as 10,000 Deaths since 1990. but the smoke alarm fraud has resulted in approximately 400,000 deaths and injuries possibly about 500,000 deaths and injuries.( Including firefighters who would not have to had made rescues had the superior alarm been mandated ) Please go to www.getsafealarms.com to thoroughly understand the reasons ionization alarms must be banned !!!! We need your support to tell congress to force the fire marshal to stop providing misleading information !!!!! And also Note Accept For Nest 100% Of all lawsuits are against ionization technology  ( the following was Confirmed by a former UTC Employee.{ This statement was originally made by a former member of the NFPA both stated the ionization alarm can be failure at 2 days!!!   ) * Also Note : In Auburn New York They felt so strongly about the need for photoelectric alarms that they enacted Averyana's Law a law that allowed tax credits for photoelectric alarms. *** By the way No justifiable reason to ban ?? I  thought I would include here a link to the cpsc petition that would help warn the public you can see how many signers it got. https://www.change.org/p/chairman-elliot-f-kaye-the-u-s-consumer-product-safety-commission-stop-the-government-cover-up-demand-the-cpsc-mandate-warning-labels-on-ionization-smoke-alarms?recruiter=false&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink. And demand that all new construction be stamped photoelectric only not ionization or combination ionization-photoelectric or iophic. Please join me in complaint thank you !!!!! ( " We Need your Support ") ( I can be emailed at buffy_jem@hotmail.com for questions.) ( Please watch For Updates ) Please sign and share Link here : https://www.change.org/p/maryland-congressman-public-safety-committee-please-change-the-legislation?recruiter=71953091&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition&pt=AVBldGl0aW9uALe4bQAAAAAAWWAn9lPxQ Note : If possible please leave a  comment it would be greatly appreciated please thank you. P.S. I have discovered problems with 10 year alarms not lasting 10 years if you have this problem please comment.



Today: Telesforo is counting on you

Telesforo Reyes needs your help with “Maryland Congressman Public Safety committee: Please change the legislation”. Join Telesforo and 2,578 supporters today.