New Zealand Fire Service -- Saving Face or Saving Lives?

May, 2006

This report was sent to the New Zealand Fire Service (NZFS) by Standards Australia’s Fire Protection Committee FP002
member,  Mr David Isaac.  The report addresses concerns about the NZFS’s duty of care to warn the New Zealand public
about ionization smoke alarms.  Mr Isaac states:

   “I have long held the view that persons in positions of significant public influence appear to underestimate the
    ‘weight’ of their comments. In so doing they often neglect their public responsibilities and duty of care obligations
    to provide proper information to the public to allow the public to make informed decisions on cost and safety.”

The report contains a May 2006 New Zealand Fire Service Press Release which stated:

1) "Smoke alarms do save lives. All of them give people sufficient warning time to get everyone out”,

     Mr Isaac commented: “This second statement is totally untrue, lacks integrity and demonstrates a lack of technical
      knowledge on the performance limitations and application of detection technology . . . More importantly the
      statement misrepresents the truth to the New Zealand public..”

2) “...a consortium of Australasian fire authorities, including New Zealand, has commissioned research into smoke
     alarms and the results are due to be released shortly. We will adopt the findings as soon as they are available"

     (see AFAC’s official Position Statement published 01 June, 2006, two weeks after the NZFS press release)

     (see the New Zealand Safety Council’s ‘Smoke Alarm Report’ in memory of Freda Birch)

The New Zealand Fire Service failed to respond.

The New Zealand Fire Service continues to fail to warn the New Zealand public that the ionization type of smoke alarms installed in almost every New Zealand home are dangerously defective despite:

1. a) Australian Governments scientific test data, dating back to 1993, which shows a ‘Deadly Loophole’ in the Smoke
       Alarm Standard that has allowed ionization smoke alarms to be ‘certified as safe’ when they are not.  More > > >
   b) The declaration by US Federal court judges that ionization alarms are “defectively designed” and their failure is a
        “a legal cause of deaths”  (Hackert v BRK, March 2008).
   
   The Foundation’s position is that ionization smoke alarms are indefensible; that people should lose faith in them;
   that rather than defending them, Fire Brigades globally have a duty of care to warn the public about them and to
   actively promote stand-alone photoelectric smoke alarms, and other safe, affordable, available alternatives.

"In the end, we will remember not the words..
of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

Martin Luther King Jr

(c) Copyright 2010  The World Fire Safety Foundation  |  Last Updated: 10 November, 2010  |  Privacy Policy  | Disclaimer |  Search WFSF site

For errors on, or suggestions for this ‘savingface’ webpage, contact the WFSF WebMaster  |  Supporters  |  About  |  Media