Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Household flame retardants potentially ineffective, dangerous

  1. #1
    is totally not a robot.
    Juiposa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ontario
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 10:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,591
    Blog Entries
    1

    Household flame retardants potentially ineffective, dangerous

    Some chemical flame retardants used in home furnishings may not help in a house fire, and can pose health hazards, a CBC investigation has found.

    A probe conducted by Marketplace tested the effectiveness of chemical retardants in upholstered furniture and also examined their potential health risks. Previous research has cast doubt on the retardants' ability to slow or stop fires, particularly in furniture foam. Environmental and health researchers are also concerned that some of the chemicals are linked to a wide range of health problems. Flame retardants are found in a wide array of household items, including upholstered furniture, electronics and children’s toys. The problem, says fire scientist Vyto Babrauskas, is that these supposed lifesavers have no benefit for the average consumer.
    Household flame retardants potentially ineffective, dangerous - Canada - CBC News

    We have our next figurative lead based paint here.

    Any comments? Opinions?
    "After all, you know, there are worse things in life than death. I mean, if you've ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman, you know exactly what I mean."
    -Woody Allen

  2. #2
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Household flame retardants potentially ineffective, dangerous

    Things that are supposed to make life safer come with a downside. It is a matter of probabilities (and lawsuits). There is never going to be such a thing as a 100% safe chemical that does the job people want it to do at the price they want it done IMO.

    The most obvious example is that shatter-proof plastics do their job over glass but at an awful environmental cost. Life is messy.

  3. #3
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,520

    Re: Household flame retardants potentially ineffective, dangerous

    I don't know, I saw the equivalent of a bonfire lit in my parents old house, flames jetting onto the celing, the couch, the carpet. Nothing really caught, it all just smoldered. I cannot imagine how fast it would have gone up had those things not been flame retardant.

    Now, as to specific chemicals and the cost benefit, I hear this all the time too. That floors me is that these decisions are largely made by community in the U.S., and government, and industry. Being a socialist, isn't that that players you'd want involved? Chlorine in your water has risks, but its determined by a lot of people to be far outweiged by the pros. But you can get a filter to eliminate it or drink your own well water, etc. How is that not ideal to give people a good safety net up front, but then allow them adequate freedom to circumvent the safety net, if they don't believe it's "safe"?

  4. #4
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Household flame retardants potentially ineffective, dangerous

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    I don't know, I saw the equivalent of a bonfire lit in my parents old house, flames jetting onto the celing, the couch, the carpet. Nothing really caught, it all just smoldered. I cannot imagine how fast it would have gone up had those things not been flame retardant.

    Now, as to specific chemicals and the cost benefit, I hear this all the time too. That floors me is that these decisions are largely made by community in the U.S., and government, and industry. Being a socialist, isn't that that players you'd want involved? Chlorine in your water has risks, but its determined by a lot of people to be far outweiged by the pros. But you can get a filter to eliminate it or drink your own well water, etc. How is that not ideal to give people a good safety net up front, but then allow them adequate freedom to circumvent the safety net, if they don't believe it's "safe"?
    Because reality does not depend on your beliefs. Some people think vaccines are unsafe. Those people are not only wrong, but their wrongness puts other people in danger. You and your child do not have the right to infect my child with a dangerous illness just because you believed some dumb blond actress' insane rants about vaccines. Sometimes circumventing the safety net affects people other than yourself. It's always a delicate question: how much right do you have to raise my health insurance premiums? I could make a strong argument for cigarette smokers having an impact on my pocketbook. It's not a black and white question, obviously, because any behavior that is unhealthy or risky potentially places cost onto others, but it's not like we can outlaw every risky or unhealthy behavior.

    So it's a judgement call that society ends up making, for better or worse.

    (clarification: using the general "you," not referring to you specifically)
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  5. #5
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: Household flame retardants potentially ineffective, dangerous

    Quote Originally Posted by Juiposa View Post
    Household flame retardants potentially ineffective, dangerous - Canada - CBC News

    We have our next figurative lead based paint here.

    Any comments? Opinions?
    So, does this mean that those government regulations may be doing more harm than good?

    Let me guess what the solution is: more government regulations?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #6
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: Household flame retardants potentially ineffective, dangerous

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Because reality does not depend on your beliefs. Some people think vaccines are unsafe. Those people are not only wrong, but their wrongness puts other people in danger. You and your child do not have the right to infect my child with a dangerous illness just because you believed some dumb blond actress' insane rants about vaccines. Sometimes circumventing the safety net affects people other than yourself. It's always a delicate question: how much right do you have to raise my health insurance premiums? I could make a strong argument for cigarette smokers having an impact on my pocketbook. It's not a black and white question, obviously, because any behavior that is unhealthy or risky potentially places cost onto others, but it's not like we can outlaw every risky or unhealthy behavior.

    So it's a judgement call that society ends up making, for better or worse.

    (clarification: using the general "you," not referring to you specifically)
    But, it's ok for the government to mandate that furniture be treated with toxic/harmful flame retardents?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #7
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Household flame retardants potentially ineffective, dangerous

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    But, it's ok for the government to mandate that furniture be treated with toxic/harmful flame retardents?
    I didn't see any indication in the article that those chemical treatments were mandatory. Certain standards have to be met, but using those particular chemicals is not required.

    edit: poking around, California is actually to blame for a lot of this. They passed a law in the 1970s mandating certain flame-retardant standards, and most manufacturers go with that standard because otherwise they can't sell their stuff in California. There's a shocker!

    Here's a startling revelation for you: laws can be changed as new information is gathered.
    Last edited by Deuce; 12-01-12 at 10:54 AM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •