• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Household flame retardants potentially ineffective, dangerous

Juiposa

Juiposa

is totally not a robot.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
606
Location
Ontario
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
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.
Click to expand...

Household flame retardants potentially ineffective, dangerous - Canada - CBC News

We have our next figurative lead based paint here.

Any comments? Opinions?
 
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.
 
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"?
 
Mach said:
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"?
Click to expand...

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)
 
Deuce said:
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)
Click to expand...

But, it's ok for the government to mandate that furniture be treated with toxic/harmful flame retardents?
 
apdst said:
But, it's ok for the government to mandate that furniture be treated with toxic/harmful flame retardents?
Click to expand...

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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom