The Thai manufacturer of the Elide Fire Extinguishing Balls, a product that claims to activate automatically in case of a fire and release fire retardant chemicals to help put it out, is pushing back on warnings from U.S. government officials that state its product is unsafe and can lead to death.
Nattapornsit Kaimart, the managing director of Elide Fire in Thailand, told Gizmodo on Monday that the company felt that the Consumer Product Safety Commission had misunderstood the purpose and function of its product. Last week, the CPSC warned customers of the risk of injury, burns, smoke inhalation, and death associated with the use of Elide’s Fire Extinguishing Balls, stating that the products can fail to extinguish a fire.
In its warning, the U.S. agency urged customers to stop using and buying Elide’s Fire Extinguishing Balls and take the products they have on hand to their local fire department or hazardous waste facility for disposal. The CPSC cited the product’s failure to adhere to UL 299 and UL 711, standards relating to dry chemical fire extinguishers and rating of testing of fire extinguishers, in its advisory.
However, Kaimart said the reference to these standards, and comparing the Fire Extinguishing Balls to fire extinguishers in general, was misguided because Elide’s products are not fire extinguishers.
“Our product represents a distinct category of fire extinguishing devices and should not be directly compared with traditional fire extinguishers,” Kaimart said. “This differentiation is fundamental to understanding the unique capabilities and intended use of our product, which may not align with the evaluation criteria typically applied to conventional fire extinguishers.”
Kaimart explained that Elide’s Fire Fighting Balls are designed to be installed at key risk points, such as the kitchen and above electrical control panels in the home, where they “activate automatically and suppress fires without the need for human intervention.” He added that the ball can also be used in emergency situations where individuals can throw a ball into the fire and stop the fire from spreading or put it out.
Furthermore, Kaimart said that it’s unclear whether the products the CPSC was referencing were manufactured by Elide Fire, stating that the products analyzed may be counterfeits.
In addition to references to UL 299 and UL 711, the CPSC referenced the Elide Fire Extinguishing Ball’s lack of a pressure indicator, closing valve, or nozzle to direct the discharge. Altogether, Kaimart said this reflects a “fundamental misunderstanding of the product’s category and purpose.”
The Elide Fire executive went on to say that the CPSC’s statement regarding the product’s failure to extinguish a fire was made “using the testing standards applicable to traditional fire extinguishers, specifically UL 299 and UL 711.”
“Our fire extinguishing ball is distinct from traditional fire extinguishers; it operates on a different principle and is designed for different use cases. Importantly, the concern regarding unintentional discharge is unfounded, as the activation mechanism of our product is designed to respond to heat from a fire, not pressure,” Kaimart said. “This misunderstanding appears to have led to the application of inappropriate evaluation criteria, which do not accurately reflect the intended function and design of our product.”
In a response to Gizmodo, the CPSC said it “stands by its finding of a risk of burns and smoke inhalation associated with the use of Elide brand fire extinguishing balls.” CPSC again highlighted that these products can fail to effectively put out a fire because they can fail to effectively disperse fire retardant chemicals.
“As CPSC has stated, consumers should stop using and dispose of Elide brand fire extinguishing balls at either a local fire department or a hazardous waste disposal facility,” the agency said in an email. “Consumers should only purchase fire extinguishers that meet both the UL 299 and UL 711 safety standards and are marked with those certifications.”
Update 4/1/2024, 5:07 p.m. ET: This post has been updated with additional comment from CPSC.
