Kidde smoke and fire alarms
117 reports to CPSC, the latest made Sep 12, 2026. A report isn’t a recall.
Watch and the shortlist are kept with a free account, on every device. Your watch list. CPSC’s own search is on saferproducts.gov.
At a glance
From SaferProducts.gov, released Oct 28, 2026.
- 117reports to CPSC
- Sep 12, 2026the latest report was made
- Sep 5, 2011the earliest
- 94with the company’s comments
- Brand
- Kidde
- Makers
- UTC Fire & Security and Carrier CorporationMakers, importers or sellers, as the reports name them
- Product
- Smoke and fire alarmsCPSC’s product type: Fire or Smoke Alarms (code 702), in Home Maintenance and Structures: Home Security
Other ways the reports write the brand (16)
“Kiddie”, “KIDDE (KN-COSM-IB)”, “KIDDIE”, “Kidde 10yr Worry-free”, “Kidde AC Hardwired Interconnect Smoke Alarm with Hush™”, “Kidde Firex”, “Kidde Intelligent Alarm”, “Kidde Intelligent Smoke/Combo Detector”, “Kidde Lifesaver”, “Kidde Model i12010S combination smoke and CO DETECTOR”, “Kidde PI2010”, “Kidde Smoke Alarm with Front Load Battery Door”, “Kidde United Technologies”, “Kidde/FireX”, “Kiddee” and “kidde fire x”
By month
The numbers, as a table
| Month | Reports |
|---|---|
| September 2026 | 2 |
| August 2026 | 1 |
| May 2026 | 1 |
| April 2026 | 1 |
| January 2026 | 1 |
| November 2025 | 1 |
| September 2025 | 3 |
| May 2025 | 1 |
| March 2025 | 1 |
| August 2024 | 2 |
| July 2024 | 1 |
| March 2024 | 1 |
| January 2024 | 4 |
| September 2023 | 2 |
| July 2023 | 1 |
| June 2023 | 1 |
| April 2023 | 1 |
| November 2022 | 1 |
| October 2022 | 2 |
| August 2022 | 3 |
| July 2022 | 2 |
| September 2021 | 2 |
| August 2021 | 1 |
| July 2021 | 1 |
| June 2021 | 1 |
| May 2021 | 2 |
| April 2021 | 1 |
| August 2020 | 2 |
| February 2020 | 1 |
| November 2019 | 1 |
| October 2019 | 1 |
| September 2019 | 1 |
| June 2019 | 2 |
| April 2019 | 1 |
| February 2019 | 1 |
| January 2019 | 2 |
| December 2018 | 1 |
| November 2018 | 2 |
| October 2018 | 1 |
| August 2018 | 1 |
| July 2018 | 1 |
| June 2018 | 1 |
| May 2018 | 2 |
| April 2018 | 1 |
| March 2018 | 2 |
| December 2017 | 1 |
| November 2017 | 2 |
| October 2017 | 1 |
| September 2017 | 1 |
| July 2017 | 1 |
| May 2017 | 1 |
| April 2017 | 1 |
| March 2017 | 1 |
| February 2017 | 1 |
| January 2017 | 1 |
| December 2016 | 1 |
| October 2016 | 1 |
| August 2016 | 1 |
| April 2016 | 1 |
| November 2015 | 1 |
| August 2015 | 3 |
| July 2015 | 1 |
| June 2015 | 2 |
| April 2015 | 2 |
| February 2015 | 1 |
| January 2015 | 3 |
| December 2014 | 2 |
| November 2014 | 3 |
| October 2014 | 2 |
| September 2014 | 3 |
| August 2014 | 1 |
| July 2014 | 1 |
| March 2014 | 1 |
| February 2013 | 1 |
| October 2012 | 1 |
| August 2012 | 2 |
| April 2012 | 1 |
| February 2012 | 1 |
| November 2011 | 1 |
| October 2011 | 2 |
| September 2011 | 2 |
How badly anyone was hurt
- Death 1
- Emergency room 1 CPSC: Injury, Emergency Department Treatment Received
- First aid 2 CPSC: Injury, First Aid Received by Non-Medical Professional
- Hurt, no treatment 2 CPSC: Injury, No First Aid or Medical Attention Received
- No one hurt 99 CPSC: Incident, No Injury
- No incident, no one hurt 6 CPSC: No Incident, No Injury
- Not said 6 CPSC: Unspecified
As each report says it, in short words; CPSC’s own words are under each.
The reports, as CPSC published them
Reports people made to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. CPSC publishes each one after sending it to the company named, and doesn’t guarantee they’re accurate. A report isn’t a recall.
Each report is the words of the person who made it, as CPSC published them. The company’s comments, where CPSC published any, are set apart as the company’s own.
CPSC, SaferProducts.gov public database export. Released Oct 28, 2026. Updated daily.
-
Not said Made Sep 24, 2014, sent to the company Oct 2, 2014, published by CPSC Oct 17, 2014
The product, in the report: Kidde Combo Smoke & CO Alarm KN-COSM-IBA
false activation of a recalled smoke and CO Detector recently installed
- Model
- KN-COSM-IBA
- Where
- Barnwell, South Carolina: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Unspecified
- The reporter’s relation to them
- Unspecified
- As this report names them
- Brand Kidde, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Unspecified
-
Not said Made Sep 12, 2014, sent to the company Sep 22, 2014, published by CPSC Oct 6, 2014
The product, in the report: Kidde photoelectric smoke alarm model p12040
Smoke/co dector alarms without smoke or fire happening. Removed from ceiling and left battery in. Alarm went off with battery hours later.
- Model
- p12040
- Bought from
- home depot
- Bought
- Jul 26, 2014
- Where
- Unspecified: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Unspecified
- The reporter’s relation to them
- Unspecified
- As this report names them
- Brand kidde, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Unspecified
-
No one hurt Made Sep 12, 2014, sent to the company Oct 30, 2014, published by CPSC Nov 17, 2014
The product, in the report: Combination Smoke/CO Alarm
The caller stated that he was doing a re-sale inspection on a house.
The caller stated that he found 3 combination alarms to be non-working in the house. All of them were the same brand and model.
The caller stated that he tested the alarms with a can of listed smoke and the alarms did not work. The caller also stated that the test button on the alarms also did not function.
Also, a green light on all of the alarms indicated to the home owners that the alarms were working normally.
The caller contacted the manf. They informed him that this batch should have reached its end of life at 7 years and should have chirped every 30 seconds. The caller stated that the alarms failed to chirp. The manf asked for the alarms back but the caller did not feel that they would properly handle the safety aspect.
The caller sent in the alarms to UL for testing. The caller is submitting 3 separate reports for the 3 alarms.
- Model
- KN-COSM-1B
- Where
- Unspecified: Unspecified
- Who was involved
- Unknown
- The reporter’s relation to them
- Unspecified
- As this report names them
- Brand Kidde, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security
- Reports CPSC links to it
- 20140912-19F78-1428237, 20140912-86B99-1428238
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Incident, No Injury
-
Not said Made Aug 5, 2014, sent to the company Sep 30, 2014, published by CPSC Oct 15, 2014
The product, in the report: Kidde lifesaver smoke alarm model 1275.
Smoke alarm sounded at 2:00 AM. Found no fire but did determine which of the 6 networked smoke detectors sounded alarm. Found a burned circuit board inside the detector created smoke that sounded alarm. Seems strange that smoke detector is a fire hazard but I believe this to be true.
- Model
- model 1275
- Bought from
- Menards, Wisconsin
- Bought
- May 1, 2007, about then
- Where
- Fond du lac, Wisconsin: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Unspecified
- The reporter’s relation to them
- Unspecified
- As this report names them
- Brand Kidde Lifesaver, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Unspecified
-
No one hurt Made Jul 1, 2014, sent to the company Jul 11, 2014, published by CPSC Jul 25, 2014
The product, in the report: Kidde PI 2012 Hard wired Smoke detector with battery back up.
In November 2012, I replaced all 6 hard wired smoke alarms in my house with Kidde PI 2010.
December 2013 one of the units alarm started sounding off. Tried spraying with compressed air with no luck. Amazon would not accept return so I purchased another unit. In February 2014 other units started sounding their alarms with no specific cause.
I contacted Kidde, they then shipped out 6 replacement units plus a free shipping form.
This morning, July 1 one of the units started going off at 6AM. I detached the unit from our bedroom ceiling.
I will again contact Kidde, but my concern is for the safety of my family and those who may just disconnect their alarms and not get around to replacing them.
Thank you, [REDACTED]
- Model
- PI 2012
- Bought from
- Kidde
- Bought
- Feb 14, 2012
- Where
- Hillsborough, New Jersey: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Age 60, Male
- The reporter’s relation to them
- Self
- As this report names them
- Brand Kidde, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Incident, No Injury
-
No one hurt Made Mar 25, 2014, sent to the company May 5, 2014, published by CPSC May 19, 2014
The product, in the report: 9 Volt, battery powered smoke alarm
The consumer smelled a plastic burning odor and started searching the house to see where it was coming from. He realized it was coming from the smoke detector. The consumer took the smoke detector down from the wall. The detector was very hot to the touch. The consumer opened the smoke detector’s cover. The inside part of the cover was melting. The consumer took the battery out. The battery inside the smoke detector was a manufacturer’s brand battery but it did not match the recommended battery specified in the smoke detector’s label. The consumer said that the manufacturer’s information recommends a specific model of battery, but the one in the smoke detector had a different model.
The consumer called the retailer and he was told that they would only replace the smoke detectors f90 days from date of purchase. The retailer’s rep. (name unknown) did not say anything about the smoke detector melting.
The consumer will call the manufacturer at a later date.
- Model
- L9040
- Serial number
- unknown
- Bought from
- Lowes
- Bought
- Jun 15, 2013
- Where
- Shenandoah, Pennsylvania: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Unspecified
- The reporter’s relation to them
- Unspecified
- As this report names them
- Brand Kidde, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Incident, No Injury
-
No incident, no one hurt Made Feb 27, 2013, sent to the company Mar 25, 2013, published by CPSC Apr 8, 2013
The product, in the report: Smoke Alarm, battery installation problem
The Kidde i9040 Smoke Alarm has design and product packaging defects that will likely result in the unit being installed without a functioning battery. Specifics:
1) The unit is shipped with a battery installed; however the battery is installed with the its contacts on the opposite end from the smoke alarm unit contacts. As a result, it can easily be perceived that the unit is ready out of the box when it is not. There is no label to advise that the battery must be flipped to make the unit functional. 2) When the battery contacts are turned so that they can be touch the unit contacts, there is nothing to prevent the battery from being installed such that the battery’s positive terminal is on the unit’s negative terminal (and correspondingly the battery’s negative terminal is on the unit’s positive terminal.)
In short, a battery can be installed in the i9040 in 3 ways, 2 of which will render the unit inoperable. This unit should be recalled and redesigned.
- Model
- i9040
- UPC
- 025417009149
- Serial number
- 820-1500 Rev A
- Bought from
- Home Depot
- Bought
- Feb 25, 2013
- Where
- Bellbrook, Ohio: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Male
- The reporter’s relation to them
- Self
- As this report names them
- Brand Kidde, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- No Incident, No Injury
-
No one hurt Made Oct 11, 2012, sent to the company Nov 1, 2012, published by CPSC Nov 16, 2012
The product, in the report: Kidde Ionization Smoke Alarm Modeli12080 manufactured “2010 Aug. 04”
Smoke detector false alarms. I replaced all 8 of the smoke alarms in our house with the Kidde i12080 smoke alarms and we have been experiencing false alarms ever since. I contacted Kidde via phone a couple of times regarding this matter. The first time I was told to have an electrician come out and install a whole house line filter as power spikes in the middle of the night may be causing the false alarms. This is not a reasonable solution due to cost. Also my previous smoke alarms never gave false alarms. My second call to Kidde I was told to disconnect the offending alarm from the system and see if they still go off. I tried this and a month or so later a different detector went into alarm mode. This detector required an 8’ ladder to reach, which is not the safest activity to engage in at 3am. I reached out to Kidde via their web site, as I did not want to wait on hold for twenty minutes. I filled out their form, and typed out the issue and received no response. I also did a web search and found this is a wide spread safety problem with the Kidde smoke detectors. There are several safety aspects to this issue that Kidde is choosing to ignore; 1. Kids and adults are learning to ignore the alarms. 2. The level of protection is compromised when you have to unhook the detectors to stop false alarms. 3. Forcing consumers up on ladders in the middle of the night is dangerous. Please help Kidde realize they have a quality and safety problem before someone gets hurt or killed.
[REDACTED]
- Model
- i12080
- Bought from
- Amazon
- Bought
- Jan 1, 2011, about then
- Where
- Portland, Oregon: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Age 42, Male
- The reporter’s relation to them
- Self
- As this report names them
- Brand Kidde, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Incident, No Injury
-
No one hurt Made Aug 23, 2012, sent to the company Sep 5, 2012, published by CPSC Sep 19, 2012
The product, in the report: Kidde Nighthawk Model Number KN-COSM-1B Combination Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Detector
Our On-Base Fire Department responded to a fire in an enclosed oven. The resident had turned on the “self cleaning” feature but inadvertently forgot there was a pan of grease in the oven. The heat inside the oven ignited the grease, the resident tried to open the oven but could not due to the safety latching feature of the oven. Upon arrival of the responding fire crews, none of the smoke detectors (Kidde Nighthawk KN-COSM-1B) in the residence were sounding, despite heavy smoke. The oven was disconnected and relocated to the exterior of the residence. Afterward, fire crews went through the house and tested every detector by pushing the test buttons, and every detector worked (sounded) at that time.
- Model
- Kidde Nighthawk KN-Cosm-1B
- Where
- Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Age 30, Female
- The reporter’s relation to them
- Unspecified
- As this report names them
- Brand Kidde, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Incident, No Injury
-
No one hurt Made Aug 9, 2012, sent to the company Aug 24, 2012, published by CPSC Sep 10, 2012
The product, in the report: Kidde Ionization Smoke Alarm Model 1276. Manufactured November 22, 2004.
This incident relates to a Kidde Model 1276 Ionization Smoke Alarm. This device has a manufacture date of November 22, 2004.
Around 12:20 AM on Sunday August 5, the smoke detectors in our house (integrated Kidde system) went off. After getting everyone out of the house, we discovered that the alarm had stopped. I located the detector that started the alarm and discovered that the smoke detector itself had char marks on it from excessive heat and determined that the smoke detector was the source of the smoke. We have since replaced the faulty detector, but his is a serious safety issue. The very device that is supposed to alert you to a fire could possibly start its own fire!
When reviewing the CSPC website I discovered that another consumer had a similar issue with a Model 1275 smoke alarm. Is this a sign of a larger issue wiht the 197x series of smoke alarms?
- Model
- Model 1276
- Bought from
- Installed by home building in new construction
- Where
- BIRDSBORO, Pennsylvania: Unspecified
- Who was involved
- Age 5, Female
- The reporter’s relation to them
- My Child
- As this report names them
- Brand Kidde, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Incident, No Injury
-
No one hurt Made Apr 18, 2012, sent to the company Apr 26, 2012, published by CPSC May 10, 2012
The product, in the report: KIDDE BATTERY IONIZATION SMOKE ALARM MODEL 0914
I purchased and installed six Kidde Ionization smoke alarms model 0914 in 2006. I regularly test these smoke alarms, and I change the batteries on a regular basis.
The units were manufactured on 11/7/2005, according to the label on the back of each unit.
Recently one alarm gave off a very faint “beep” every few minutes. This was not the usual loud “chirp” indicating a low battery, but a barely audible sound.
I changed the battery with a new, fresh 9-volt battery, but the unit would not alarm when tested by pressing the test button.
I checked the other five units in my home, and found another unit that had also failed, without giving any warning at all. Installing a new battery in the second failed unit also had no effect, and testing the unit produced no audible warning.
I’m concerned that two of six units failed within a short span, and with little or no warning.
I have both units available for inspection by you or the manufacturer if needed.
- Model
- IONIZATION SMOKE ALARM MODEL 0914
- Bought from
- unknown
- Bought
- Apr 1, 2006, about then
- Where
- Hauppauge, New York: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Unspecified
- The reporter’s relation to them
- Unspecified
- As this report names them
- Brand KIDDE, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Incident, No Injury
-
No one hurt Made Feb 6, 2012, sent to the company Feb 14, 2012, published by CPSC Feb 29, 2012
The product, in the report: http://www.walmart.com/ip/Kidde-Smoke-Alarm-with-Front-Load-Battery-Door/16564924 Model# 0976 Kidde Smoke Alarm with Front Load Battery Door
Bought a Kiddie smoke detector from Walmart on Tuesday 01/17/2012. Installed it per directions in our master bedroom. Same models were installed in 2nd bedroom and utility room. Had a fire that started in the master bedroom. The smoke became visible coming down the stairs prior to the smoke detector activating. It sounded 3 times and stopped. Post fire inspection found that the smoke detector melted and was across the room from the fire. The 2nd bedroom smoke detector NEVER sounded.
- Model
- 0976
- Bought from
- Walmart, Missouri
- Bought
- Jan 17, 2012
- Where
- Saint Joseph, Missouri: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Unspecified
- The reporter’s relation to them
- Unspecified
- As this report names them
- Brand Kidde Smoke Alarm with Front Load Battery Door, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Incident, No Injury
-
No one hurt Made Nov 28, 2011, sent to the company Dec 22, 2011, published by CPSC Jan 9, 2012
The product, in the report: smoke alarm, consumer reporting on 3 of them and one is smoke alarm/CO2 detector
The consumer says his wife was cooking when she fell asleep and suddenly the house filled up with smoke. He says none of the alarms went off. The combination 12 feet from the stove top and the other two were about 22 feet from the stove top. He says that he had recently changed the batteries on them. He says he tested them and they were fine so he is not sure why they didnt go off. He contacted the manufacturer who requested he send them back.
- Model
- FADCM1200
- Bought
- Apr 15, 2007, about then
- Where
- Unspecified: Unspecified
- Who was involved
- Unspecified
- The reporter’s relation to them
- Unspecified
- As this report names them
- Brand Kidde/
FireX, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security - How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Incident, No Injury
-
No one hurt Made Oct 28, 2011, sent to the company Nov 7, 2011, published by CPSC Nov 22, 2011
The product, in the report: hardwired interconnected smoke alarm
I bought four Kidde smoke alarms model PI2010 and integrated carbon monoxide/smoke alarm. They arrived October 22, 2011 from Amazon.com. Two of the units are defective. Neither unit will respond to pushing the test button. This is a 50 percent failure rate and Kidde does not adequately support their customers.
On one unit, the test button will not release on its own; I have to bang the unit in the palm of my hand to get the test button to release. Even though I do this, the unit will not respond as documented in the manufacturer’s documentation. There is no help for this problem on the manufacturer’s website.
On the other unit, there is a loose piece of plastic rattling in the inside. It looks to be a piece of molded plastic which might be part of the linkage from the button to a switch inside the unit. I have not disassembled it. This alarm will also not respond to the test button.
I removed my previous smoke alarm system and I am replacing it with Kidde alarms. Unfortunately, Kidde’s telephone support requires their customers to wait through a 30 minute hold time and when presented with the information about their defective product product, the agent agreed to ship replacement units to me which would arrive in 7 to 10 days. I told the agent that they needed arrive within two days or I would return them to the retailer and would report this incident to the CSPC.
I requested to talk to a manager but was unable to do so.
In my opinion, Kidde falls well below the standard required of a company that manufacturers and distributes safety products.
- Model
- PI2020 item number 21007915
- Bought from
- Amazon.com, Arizona
- Bought
- Oct 22, 2011
- Where
- Los Altos, California: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Unspecified
- The reporter’s relation to them
- Unspecified
- As this report names them
- Brand Kidde Firex, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Incident, No Injury
-
No one hurt Made Oct 14, 2011, sent to the company Oct 21, 2011, published by CPSC Nov 4, 2011
The product, in the report: Kidde 1275 Smoke/Fire Detector hard wired with 9V battery backup.
This is to report a problem with the Kidde 1275 Smoke/Fire Alarm.
For 2 days, there was a smell of electrical smouldering in my home. We thoroughly inspected the house and could not find the source. After 2 days, my smoke alarm sounded and even though there was no fire or smoke condition, the smoke detector would not silence the alarm beep. I removed the Kidde 1275 and took it apart and to my surprise, there was black char inside the smoke detector. Since removing the smoke detector, I never smelled the electrical smouldering scent since.
There are simiar reports on the interenet.
- Model
- 1275
- Bought from
- Toll Brothers
- Bought
- May 1, 2006, about then
- Where
- Cortlandt Manor, New York: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Unspecified
- The reporter’s relation to them
- Unspecified
- As this report names them
- Brand Kidde, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Incident, No Injury
-
No one hurt Made Sep 22, 2011, sent to the company Sep 30, 2011, published by CPSC Oct 17, 2011
The product, in the report: Kidde Smoke Detector batteries failed. Item was to last 10 years. Model # 0910
Kidde Smoke detector Model No: 0910 Manufactured date: Oct.25 2008 Install Date: March 9, 2009
Product has a 10 year battery life that failed after only 2 years after activation. Product made a 30 second chirp to indicate battery life has ended. Product was replaced in 7-10 business days after I called Kidde about the problem.
This is a very unsafe and unpredictable safety issue.
- Model
- 0910
- Bought from
- home depot
- Bought
- Mar 9, 2009, about then
- Where
- Prospect park, Pennsylvania: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Unspecified
- The reporter’s relation to them
- Unspecified
- As this report names them
- Brand Kidde, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security
- How badly, in CPSC’s words
- Incident, No Injury
-
Death Made Sep 5, 2011, sent to the company Sep 19, 2011, published by CPSC Oct 3, 2011
The product, in the report: There were 7 ionization smoke alarms. 3 types have been identified: Kidde- model 0916, Fisrt Alert - UNK. the melted alarms can probably be identified by comparing them to ones that have been identified.
Note: As the CPSC is aware from my previous complaints on this issue, I am a Deputy Chief on the Boston Fire Dept. I have contacted the St. Charles Fire Dept. and will send them a copy of this complaint. However, since I am not a member of the local fire dept. I am forwarding this as a civilian.
There were 4 victims in this fire: [REDACTED] (F-30), [REDACTED] (M-27), [REDACTED] (M-8), & [REDACTED] (F-2).
In this fire (see news report below) the victims were trapped by a fire that apparently started near the kitchen. It is likely that this fire produced copious amounts of smoke into the living areas and egress paths before it was heavily flaming. There were multiple smoke alarms, all ionization, installed in this house. Here their locations.
• Living Room (Ion alarm - melted on floor, in debris manufacturer unknown – interestingly this was found by insurance investigator similar to complaint I filed with CPSC from Rotterdam NY))
• Common Stairwell (Ion alarm - melted on floor, in debris manufacturer unknown)
• Basement (Ion alarm – non operational)
• Garage (Ion alarm – First Alert, no battery which would be expected of an alarm located in a garage)
• Bedrooms 3 and 4 (Ion alarm - Family Gard melted but with batteries)
• Bedroom 2 (No alarm)
• Master Bedroom (Kidde 0916 with a battery)
In this case all the smoke alarms were ionization. (The CPSC should not be surprised since CPSC estimates that 90% of all alarms are ionization.) In this fire the occupants appear to have been awakened by the smoke alarms. According to the one survivor, [REDACTED], he heard smoke alarms after being awoken by [REDACTED]. It appears that many if not all occupants acted in an altruistic and proper manner but did not have enough time to safely escape. It is highly probable that they did not have enough time because the ionization smoke alarms did not operate in time to provide adequate warning from smoke build-up. The 2 most important alarms were found in areas (living room and stairwell) which would indicate that they were properly located and should have provided adequate warning since there were not any closed door between the fire and the smoke alarms. It is also highly likely that since photoelectric smoke alarms are sensitive to all kinds of smoke they would have gone off much earlier and probably several minutes before the smoke developed to the point that egress was impeded. As a consequence, precious warning, which would have been provided by photoelectric alarms, did not exist. I am highly confident that if this house had photoelectric smoke alarms that these young people would not have died.
Vermont, Massachusetts and the International Association of Fire Fighters have recently passed legislation/ resolutions that recognize the limitations of ion alarms to provide timely warning. Why doesn’t the CPSC recognize this?
Why doesn’t the CPSC respond to [REDACTED]’s request and investigate my previous complaints (approximately 100). In this case, I was able to contact the St. Charles Fire Dept. and they have all of the information that the CPSC needs to adequately investigate this complaint. I have found them to be one of the most conscientious fire department I have ever been acquainted with.
NEWS STORIES [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]’s letter.
— [REDACTED] PUSHES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION TO ANSWER FOR UNSAFE SMOKE DETECTORS *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE :* June 12, 2008* CONTACT:* [REDACTED] PUSHES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION TO ANSWER FOR UNSAFE SMOKE DETECTORS BOSTON — — * [REDACTED] today sent a letter to the head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), urging her to answer for smoke detectors that have continuously proven to be unsafe. [REDACTED]’s letter is a follow up on a letter sent by [REDACTED] of the Boston Fire Department, who raised the issue with the CPSC earlier this year. In his letter, dated March 12, 2008, [REDACTED] drew attention to safety issues surrounding ionization smoke detectors and asked the CPSC to investigate. The CPSC, which had expressed concerns about the detectors as early as 1995, has failed to investigate or to even respond to [REDACTED] concerns. “This should be a no-brainer. If smoke detectors are proven to be ineffective, why are they still being used? [REDACTED] rightly raised this question earlier this year. I strongly urge the CPSC to immediately provide answers to his concerns as well as to consider the potential loss of life when Americans are using inadequate and unsafe smoke detectors,” said [REDACTED]. *The text of the letter is below:* — — June 12, 2008
— [REDACTED] — US Consumer Product Safety Commission — 4330 East-West Highway Room 419 — Bethesda, MD 20814 — — Dear [REDACTED]: — — I am writing as a follow-up to a letter sent to the *Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) *by [REDACTED] of the Boston Fire Department on March 12, 2008 regarding the safety of smoke alarms. It is my understanding that there are multiple unresolved issues concerning ionization detectors’ inability to detect smoke or sound an alarm. *In fact, it is my understanding that the CPSC expressed serious concerns regarding ionization detectors as early as 1995. These concerns mirror those put forward by [REDACTED], an outspoken advocate for removing ionization detectors from the marketplace. Yet, the CPSC still has not acted to remove the alarms from the market, nor has the CPSC warned consumers as to the potential drawbacks of ionized detectors. * The issues that appear to be the most prescient and that were addressed by [REDACTED] in his letter to you, still remain unsettled. I ask that you address, the questions in [REDACTED]’S letter in detail, and respond to the following concerns: 1. The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) has found that, on average, a photoelectric detector is 30 minutes faster in detecting a smoldering fire than an ionized detector. The highest percentage of deaths caused by smoldering fires occurs while people are sleeping, when the operation of a smoke detector is critical. In fact, this percentage may be as high as 100 percent. Four years ago NIST reached the conclusion that ionization detectors sometimes fail to alarm in smoldering fires, even when visibility is significantly degraded by smoke. 2. While ionized detectors alarm sooner in “ultra-fast” flaming fires by an average of 50 seconds, those seconds appear to be negligible considering that most people are awake when flaming fires occur. In addition, in what appears to be the most common type of flaming fires (i.e. cooking fires) the photoelectric detector was providing more than enough time for an occupant to escape. 3. Several studies show that the ionization smoke detector is many times more likely to be disabled than photoelectric detectors. 4. The ionization smoke detector is being used by the vast majority of Americans. The ionization smoke alarms susceptibility to nuisance alarms (leading to disablement) and inadequate response to smoldering fires could be responsible for hundreds of needless deaths each year. Recently, due to the efforts of [REDACTED] of the Boston Fire Department to educate the authorities to these facts, the states of Massachusetts and Vermont have taken steps to restrict the use of ionization smoke detectors in residential occupancies. In response to the available evidence that suggests the inherent danger of ionization detectors, I ask that you promptly investigate the issues raised by [REDACTED], and that you respond to his letter of March 12, 2008. Fire safety and the use of working fire alarms are vital to the protection of our children, seniors, adults and families around the United States. I strongly urge you to provide a timely response to the above concerns and to consider the potential loss of life should it become clear that a large percentage of Americans are using inadequate smoke detectors. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. — — Sincerely, — [REDACTED]—
- Model
- 0916
- Where
- St. Charles, United States: Home/
Apartment/ Condominium - Who was involved
- Age 30, Female
- The reporter’s relation to them
- No Relationship
- As this report names them
- Brand Kidde, made or sold by UTC Fire & Security
CPSC’s disclaimer
Disclaimer: CPSC does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database on SaferProducts.gov, particularly with respect to information submitted by people outside of CPSC.
Word for word, from the disclaimer in CPSC’s export.
Sources
Sources
-
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, SaferProducts.gov public database export.
Released Oct 28, 2026 and checked Oct 28, 2026. Updated daily. Public domain (U.S. Government work). CPSC asks to be credited, and that no endorsement be implied.
Reports of harm are from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), on SaferProducts.gov. CPSC does not endorse Hearth Record.