You are on page 1of 1

THE CALIFORIA STATE FIRE MARSHAL AND THE IONIZATION TYPE SO-CALLED SMOKE DETECTOR During the 1970s

and the 1980s I was devoting most of my time to establishing the concepts that the fire sprinkler system was the best solution to fire that was available. I had created the Patton Life Safety Sprinkler System that would concentrate higher density above the early fire and therefore the early heat would be controlled. This would prevent the large scale opening of sprinklers far removed from the fires location. Also I was designing for gridded (multiple path flows) using copper and plastic pipe all of which were contrary to the NFPA codes. Also, I had worked with that California State fire Marshal at the time, Phil Favro, to develop a low cost available water sprinkler system code for protecting residential properties. I was installing these systems. Thus, I was not able to devote as much time as needed to the ionization detector problem in homes. Beginning during 1989 I increased attention to the home smoke detector problem. During 1989 I was able to meet with Hugh Council, the Deputy State Fire Marshal and spent several hours providing him with a great deal of evidence. I had developed much information relative the failure modes of the device and the dishonest performance claims that had been advertised within the NFPA Fire Journal. At the meeting with Hugh Council I was assured that my concerns were being investigated and that there would be some conclusions reached. I wrote to him on June 2, 1989 to try to get an idea as to how the investigations were going (letter attached). The attachment to that letter seems to be no longer available. The California State Fire Marshal was, in my opinion a key official relative the smoke detector problem because the fire marshal was approving the device. This implied the device was actually being tested and certified by the fire marshals office. To my knowledge, the office of the California State fire Marshal was the only one in the country actually certifying the device. Others depended on the UL approvals. A copy of a box that a smoke detector was sold in is attached showing the state fire marshals approval is attached. It should be noted that the fire marshals generally did not stay in the office for a long time; hence a number of officials filled the post from 1989 until today. As future reports will reveal, apparently no real efforts were being made to correct the smoke detector problem. Richard M. Patton August13, 2010

You might also like