March 24, 2011

Mr. Louis R. Chnevert President and CEO United Technologies Corporation (UTC) 1 Financial Plaza Hartford, CT 06103 Subject: SMOKE DETECTOR CRIMES/ PEDOPHILE PRIESTS CRIMES Dear President Chnevert: I have long believed that the crimes of the pedophile priests and the crimes of those who marketed dishonest smoke detectors have similarities. Based on news reports it appears there have been examples of priests molesting children as far back as 7 decades ago; perhaps even earlier. The question that comes to mind then is; why were these crimes not reported by members of the media decades ago? If the media had exposed these criminal acts decades earlier, think of all the children that probably would never been subjected to those terrible crimes. So, the next question is; why did the media give the priests what amounted to a pass for decades? The only reason I can think of is that the reporters were reluctant to accuse members of the church of such deplorable behavior. In effect, the priests were holy men and therefore it was unthinkable that they would commit such crimes. The smoke detector fraud began about 1965 when the manufacturers began to publish dishonest ads within the Fire Journal of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Underwriters Laboratories (UL) provided certifications, first based on inadequate testing and later based on deliberately rigged and falsified test procedures. From there it went downhill because, when those who are presumably protecting the public join in the criminal acts, the bad becomes horrific. Yet, despite an amazing array of evidence on the internet confirming that the device is defective, the testing is flawed and the device is deadly; nearly all the reporters are presently reluctant to cover the story. Again, do we have the case of the media protecting the good guys; which in this case are the high level fire officials? The crimes of the pedophile priests were aired and, as you know, the coverage continues even to today. Based on my calculations, which are based on FEMA loss data, I believe that perhaps as many as 40 thousand children have burned to death due to defective so-called smoke detectors failing to warn when there still was time to escape or not at all. Whereas the priests molested the children the dishonest smoke detector manufacturers caused tens of thousands of children to burn to death. That is why I say the crimes of those who helped put defective smoke detectors into probably 90 million U.S. homes are far worse than the crimes

committed by the priests. Hence, when the story of the deadly smoke detector finally hits the 6 PM news hour it will be a big one. I believe that when it comes to judging degree of guilt the decisions will be largely based on the times of the crimes. When the defective nature of the ionization device was known only to a few and the NFPA/UL team was actively promoting it and certifying it as reliable, it is understandable that many of those who marketed the device believed they were doing nothing wrong. That, it seems to me, would be the best available defense. About 5 years ago the number of concerned fire safety advocates that began to warn of the dangers increased. I personally went to Australia twice and played a role in the creation of the World Fire Safety Foundation. Now this organization has a web site that contains an awesome amount of evidence of the dangers associated with the device. Live fire tests have been conducted in recent years revealing the inability of the device to warn of a smoky fire. One of these test programs was initiated by a state fire marshal. A professor at Texas A & M University has been testing the device and confirming it does not provide reasonable protection. I could continue with other examples of the more recent revelations but the evidence is on this web site: www.TheWorldFireSafetyFoundation.org. The point I am trying to make is that, regardless of past actions, it is becoming more risky (legally) to hide the dangers from the people. I received an opinion from a retired judge that to market a dangerous product while concealing the flaws from the public is a felony. Also, he said that when deaths result from a felony it could be classed as murder. I am enclosing a copy of my original letter to you dated December 5, 2010 to refresh your memory. Then I am enclosing a copy of the reply from Mr. Ward of Kidde dated January 3, 2011. Finally, I enclose my letter back to Mr. Ward dated February 28, 2011. I believe you will see that the explanations by Mr. Ward simply do not alleviate the problem. There have been some horrific awards against smoke detector manufacturers over the years. One amounted to a 50 million dollar award which was later reduced upon appeal. Apparently the profits from the sales have offset the awards. But, the marketing of a defective so-called smoke detector while concealing its inability to detect real (visible) smoke could lead to a class action law suit. There is a request for an authorization for a class action suit in the works. In the past, one of the primary defenses of the defendants has been: the device is UL approved. Presumably that meant that it had reliability. But that defense is certain to lose validity as the public increasingly learns that UL knowingly falsified fire tests to conceal the inability of the device to detect real (visible) smoke. A corrupt UL is less than a certain defense for a corrupt marketing plan. I have estimated, based on FEMA loss data, that about 40 thousand children have been killed by fires due to the flawed device failing to warn. That is not a track record that will endear a jury. So, President Chnevert, I suggest that the best course of action is to begin promptly to discontinue the marketing of the deadly ionization devices. Also, providing reliable devices and honest information for protecting the children would be the best defense, in my judgment. Sincerely,

Richard M. Patton Fire Protection engineer