Underwriters Laboratories (UL)  - 1 of 4
Has UL Committed ‘Scientific Misconduct’?
Viewing Problems?sorry.htmlshapeimage_2_link_0
John Drengenberg
UL Consumer Affairs Manager
“... when the smoke hits
that alarm it will sound.”
Underwriters Laboratories 
“. . .when the smoke hits that (UL listed) alarm it will sound.”
The World Fire Safety Foundation 
“Not according to recent, independent, scientific and fire fighter
testing conducted in the USA, Australia and New Zealand.
Has UL committed Scientific Misconduct?”
Adrian Butler
WFSF Chairman, Co-Founder
Has UL committed
Scientific Misconduct?
John Drengenberg in WTHR’s ‘Deadly Delay’, UL investigation, April 2007
“UL has set the Entire Foundation for Product-Safety Certification.”

Debra Rade, former UL Chief Legal Officer and Senior Vice President of Administrative Operations as quoted in

The Washington Post’s ‘How Safe are Products Bearing the UL Mark?’, December, 1999

Dr B Don Russell
Texas A & M University
"Their science isn't any good, frankly.
 As a scientist, practicing science that
 doesn't replicate what the world really
 is, in terms of physics, is worthless."
Dr B Don Russell
Investigative journalist, Bob Segall asks why ionization
smoke alarms ‘certified’ by UL do not go off in a room full of smoke
Runtime: 7 minutes  |  version 1.0 - Updated: 10 August, 2010  |  Continuous Playbackhomeul.htmlshapeimage_17_link_0
UL-Approved Smoke Alarms May Give False Sense of Security
Watch the Film
See the Washington Post’s Exposé:
‘How Safe Are Products Bearing the UL Mark?’
UL 2:  > > >ul2.htmlshapeimage_25_link_0
“Underwriters Laboratories is, so to speak,.
  “in bed” with the smoke alarm manufacturers.”

Richard Taylor, Senior Partner, Taylor Martino, Mobile Alabama

from, ‘The Defect in Smoke Alarms’ Report, August, 2009

UL2 - Washington Post’s ‘How Safe?’ Exposé:  > > >      |     UL3 - UL Testimony at Albany:  > > >     |    UL4 - The UL Letters:  > > >ul2.htmlul3.htmlulletters.htmlshapeimage_27_link_0shapeimage_27_link_1shapeimage_27_link_2
UL2 - Washington Post’s ‘How Safe?’ Exposé:  > > >      |     UL3 - UL Testimony at Albany:  > > >     |    UL4 - The UL Letters:  > > >ul2.htmlul3.htmlulletters.htmlshapeimage_28_link_0shapeimage_28_link_1shapeimage_28_link_2
Hosford vs BRK Brands, Inc;
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc; et al
Hosford vs BRK Brands Inc,; Underwriters Laboratories Inc; et al, page 13, clause 47
(scroll down page for complete law suit documentation)
  1. a.By modifying the smoldering fire test in UL Standard 217 to eliminate materials that
    presented foreseeable challenges to ionization smoke alarms.  . . .

c. By failing to formulate and implement safety standards for ionization smoke alarms that
    require ionization smoke alarms to detect slow smoldering fires in a timely manner . . .”

“Defendant UL was negligent or wanton
  in one or more of the following respects:”

(c) Copyright 2012  The World Fire Safety Foundation  |  Last Updated: 08 March, 2012  |  Privacy Policy  | DisclaimerSearch WFSF site

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