February 19, 2010

Ms. Janice L. Tuchman, Editor in Chief Engineering News-Record Two Penn Plaza, 9th Floor New York, NY 10121 Subject: The Life Safety Sprinkler System and The Smoke Detector Fraud Dear Ms. Tuchman: I was nominated for the ENR Engineer of the Year award during 1972 for the development of the Life Safety System (fire sprinkler system) oriented toward life safety. At the time I received a listing of all the other nominees and what their works were. I no longer have that list. If it is possible to get a copy of that list for 1972 I would really appreciate it. I will briefly bring you up to date on my very long campaign to make all buildings fire safe. Until the development of my Life Safety System close to 100 percent of all buildings where life was the main risk were not being sprinkler protected. This included schools, apartment houses, single family residences, high rises, hospital, nursing homes, hotels, motels, etc. Even the World Trade buildings were originally built non-sprinklered (later retrofitted). The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) code defined sprinkler system required large steel pipe (as large as 8 inch), enormously costly fire pumps and city connections plus many thousands of gallons of water. With few exceptions only the large and high valued industrial properties were being sprinkler protected. After I developed the system I installed many life safety systems with dramatic cost reductions. For example, I enclose a report on the Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas. The NFPA system had been bid for part of the hospital at $2.88 per square foot whereas I designed a system for the entire hospital that was bid and installed for 35 cents a square foot (approximately a 90 percent cost reduction). The total cost of my system installed was $431,136.00 and because the building was then completely sprinklered the construction cost was reduced by more than $5 million dollars. Usually I used small pipe gridded copper or plastic pipe systems with multiple flow paths with hydraulic engineering designs so simple to install that plumbers and even plant maintenance men could install them. Eventually the NFPA was forced to recognize both copper and plastic pipe for sprinkler work due to my works. However, the NFPA, the sprinkler industry and the plumbers union constantly harassed me and the NFPA seemingly had no trouble getting the federal agencies and many fire 1

department officials to harm my businesses. I received death threats (unknown sources) and a warning of legal action by the NFPA. The sprinkler industry constantly distributed claims that I was cheating customers, not completing work etc. I stated a business in three times in different locations but eventually they killed all three. The methods were often criminal in nature but I was powerless to gain any help from government. The good thing, however, to counter my systems the NFPA code was significantly revised (not enough but some) and the concept of using sprinkler protection for life safety, not just property protection, took hold. After I finally gave up on trying to market systems dramatically lower in cost than the NFPA will allow, I became a consultant and at times an expert witness in legal actions against the smoke detector industry. I say that the ionization type smoke detector is Americas deadliest fraud and, in recent years I am gaining many allies in a campaign to make homes fire safe. About 95 percent of all fire deaths - due to building fires - occur within the home. After two trips to Australia to provide information regarding the smoke detector fraud I gained great cooperation from some Australians who have now created web sites revealing the dangers associated with the ionization type (phony) smoke detector. The web sites are listed on the enclosures. I am enclosing several of the brochures I mail to the media and others plus posting on the internet. During the last three years I posted more than 100 such reports. The issues are critically important as I estimate that the defective ionization device (so-called smoke detector) has been the root cause of at least 75,000 fire deaths since it was introduced with blatant performance lies during the 1960s. I am hopeful that you or your staff will run the short videos on the internet that show actual fire tests (conducted by fire officials) where the smoke is exceedingly thick, the smoldering burn times exceed a half hour, the fire officials are wearing air pacs and the ionization devices are silent. I say that when a defective so-called smoke detector is installed in a home and the occupants are provided with performance lies, and the kids burn; it should be classed as murder. Sincerely,

Richard M. Patton Fire Protection Engineer