11 ms·

Toxic sofas are a secret scandal

217 points by montalbano 7y ago

jimbob45 7y ago
"According to parliament’s environmental audit committee (EAC), mothers in the UK and the US have the world’s highest recorded concentrations of a toxic class of flame retardants in their breastmilk" So this is a US thing too or what? I couldn't find anything else in the article mentioning the US.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  It has been widely reported in the US for years e.g. - https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/four-chemical-classes-cost-us-public-270-million-iq-points-over-15-years/4011087.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/four-chemical-classes-co... - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/this-everyday-chemical-was-cast-aside-its-replacement-might-be-making-cats-sick https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/this-everyday-chemical-... - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191213115438.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191213115438.h... - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191022080726.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191022080726.h...
- tjr 7y ago
  I imagine true of couches; certainly true of mattresses, per 16 CFR Part 1633, Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets. At least one company sells nontoxic mattresses: https://www.nontoxicbeds.com/ https://www.nontoxicbeds.com/
Someone1234 7y ago
The title is too clickbaity for such an interesting article otherwise. The fire retardants (and their problems/limitations) themselves are more interesting of a topic than the whole Brexit/EU spin that the title is trying to bait with. It is like someone tried to write an interesting article then someone else came along and said "How can be mix Brexit into this?" Particularly as this issue has been well known for over ten years, long before Brexit was a realistic thing and the UK solo could have done something without the EU if it had wanted.
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  > the UK solo could have done something without the EU if it had wanted. Could it? Wouldn’t one EU state banning products from sale due to the presence of chemicals not banned elsewhere in the EU, not go against the point of the Common Market?
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    No. Each EU state enacts their own versions of EU regulation, including variances. This is already the case with multiple food items, video games (Germany), animal products, electrical systems, and furniture standards. The common market is a trade alliance with some regulatory back-stops. In this case if the UK banned these chemicals and required a safer flame retardant, it would likely be legal elsewhere in the EU anyway because as the article says the currently regulations are too vague on WHAT can be used (so manufacturers use the cheapest). Obviously none of which matters with Brexit. But historically the UK absolutely could have acted alone, as can other EU countries today.
    - detritus 7y ago
      Yup, which is a central core to the tragedy of how the EU was [mis-] sold to the UK populace and the idea of Brexit allowed to creep in over decades of gradual negative sublimation in the tabloid / right-wing press. We've always been free to choose much of our own course (blue passports anyone?), and we've also been as free as other EU states to break rules when it suited us. Beyond that, we were a part of the dialogue and could've pushed our points in within the European context. Instead we had the likes of Farage taking up seats in the EU parliament and adding absolutely nothing useful. And so, the various vying frontline political factions in Westminster managed to pin much of the discontent in the UK's political landscape on the EU, not itself. - ed clarified a line by adding '/ right wing'
- namdnay 7y ago
  Much as I like the Guardian, it seems that every single article they publish now has to mention Brexit in some way shape or form.
moltar 7y ago
The worst part is that application of fire retardants was not a science based solution. It was cigarette companies who lobbied pro fire retardants. People were setting furniture on fire while falling asleep with cig in hand. And instead of taking blame, they shifted focus and made the laws pass.
- Ghjklov 7y ago
  This sounds a bit weird to me. Why do cigarette companies take blame for people who smoke and cause fires while falling asleep during it? Do we blame knife manufacturers when a cook cuts himself?
  - rgovostes 7y ago
    According to the documentary "Merchants of Doubt," there were modifications that could be made to cigarette design to reduce the likelihood of causing a fire, but the companies resisted changing their products.
    - klyrs 7y ago
      Do you remember what modifications were on the table? Kinda seems like a cigarette is a punk (in the pyrotechnic sense)... I'm having trouble seeing anything that would be effective without being annoying enough for people to work around.
      - namdnay 7y ago
        By changing the formula for the paper, you can have a cigarette that will go out if you don't drag on it for 30-60s, just like a hand-rolled. But obviously that's bad for business..
        furgooswft13 7y ago
        > have a cigarette that will go out if you don't drag on it for 30-60s Have you smoked a cigarette recently (as in at least the past 10 years)?. This is absolutely what they do. I'm not sure what the exact flame out time is for any particular brand, but it's a real drag (ahem) for people who like to smoke slowly, as the first re-lit hit feels very harsh. According to Wikipedia[1] fire-safe cigarettes are required in all 50 states as of 2011. It's been awhile since I've smoked but I remember me and my friends bitching about the fire safe paper many years before that. We also theorized that it was making the cig more harsh in general. Of course we never had any evidence of this. I might be wrong about this, but it seems to me that simple paper + tobacco hand rolled cigs natural behavior would be to not flame out, or do so much more slowly. What's stopping it from continuing to burn? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_safe_cigarette#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_safe_cigarette#United_Sta...
gnicholas 7y ago
So where can people buy sofas and beds without these chemicals? I recently asked about this at Restoration Hardware (an expensive furniture store), and they had no idea about it.
- sidewndr46 7y ago
  At least in the US I think you'd have to make it yourself. I believe that mattresses are somehow exempt in the US? So the futon becomes a weird gray area. You can buy one with the express intent of using it only as a couch, but you put a mattress on it. I'm not 100% sure to be honest.
  - cullenking 7y ago
    A few years back I bought a sofa from a small manufacturer that claimed it was free of fire retardants. Similar story for my mattress. The mattress side took some research, but from what I found most foam mattresses are free of them, and some manufacturers use a tightly woven cotton cover to get the fire retardant properties, rather than a cover treated with fire retardant chemicals. Do your own research, but from what I found it’s not too hard to be careful about this stuff.
    - sidewndr46 7y ago
      Looks like IKEA doesn't use brominated flame retardants. https://www.ikea.com/us/en/files/pdf/5c/df/5cdf003d/ikea_faq_flame_retardants.pdf https://www.ikea.com/us/en/files/pdf/5c/df/5cdf003d/ikea_faq... The underlying problem here is that furniture doesn't need flame retardants, period. You wind up with this weird mouse & cat game. A drive to replace one additive just find something new, previously unknown, and possibly worse. For example banning lead additives from gasoline was a good thing. It was replaced with MTBE which causes to groundwater contamination. This has now been banned in the US, which ironically sees ethanol replacing it. Ethanol production obviously predates gasoline, so it could have been used all along.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  All mass produced furniture has them. The only way to avoid is to find the last few vendors that build-to-order items like sofas, but then we're talking ultra-premium tier pricing (and are rare). Even the new flame retardant that they're using to replace the old one is considered dangerous. So there's no end in near sight to this problem. I don't know of a realistic/affordable solution for normal consumers, even with knowledge of the problem.
ptah 7y ago
is there a way to get a list of flame retardant chemicals on a product?
Aloha 7y ago
I think this comment from the original article sums things up nicely: "The 1988 regs are a total mess. They work for no one except the chemicals manufacturers and the most slapdash furniture manufacturers. They could be described as either over-regulation or under-regulation. In either case, it's the wrong regulation. But because they have created a certain kind of industry, that industry, with its sunk costs and established interests, wants them to stay as they are. And despite years of handwaving and consultations that go nowhere, governments have obliged."
tompccs 7y ago
This is an interesting and important topic buried under George Monbiot's usual political posturing and making any and every issue about Brexit. An example of where EU hasn't regulated properly is somehow supposed to automatically be made worse leaving the EU? He claims that the government is using Brexit as a distraction from this issue but then links to a parliamentary report as one of his primary sources. (I know parliament is not the same as the current government, but come on, this is not some kind of top-down conspiracy) Regulations frequently butt up against eachother. Making something non-flammable and non-toxic is obviously not trivial. I would love to understand more about this because there is almost certainly something worth investigating here but can we please give this to anyone but George Monbiot to write about.
sofarfromhome 7y ago
I'm the civil servant who was leading on the UK regs until 2015 when I was pushed out of the job for taking out a whistle-blower case. George Monbiot has done a good job overall and he asked me to clear the final draft. It's an immensely complicated mass of issues, with the hugely powerful flame retardant industry pulling the strings. They played a big part in setting up these Regulations in the first place; just like they did in the US. It's not going to get any better unless action is taken. Just yesterday, I met the civil servants currently responsible and under questioning, admitted they aren't going to change anything for at least another 9-12 years.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Any recommendations on how to more rapidly move the needle? Your work is appreciated!
  - sofarfromhome 7y ago
    For a long time I was written off by government and industry as a lone maverick with a chip on his shoulder. But things have changed a lot over the last year, first with the report by the Environmental Audit Committee in July which agreed with my findings and bollocked the Department for Business to get on with changing things. Second - and having massive effects behind the scenes but coming more into play - was the formation of a contaminants group in the FBU. The two guys behind it were outraged to discover only recently (and much of it from my website) that for 30 years they've been exposed to massively toxic fires without even been told about it by their management. Part of the problem there is corrupt fire safety officials in the pay of the flame retardant industry. So in a short space of time, we've had people running for cover, resigning from committees and being axed from their jobs for corruption. What else will move things on? Get your MP to write to the Department for Business. I met them yesterday and while they're crapping themselves about the attention that's now on them, they admitted that in effect they're not going to make any changes to these Regulations for another 9-12 years. I spelled out to them that that means we're going to continue poisoning our children as they sleep but these people have segmented minds and somehow avoid taking any responsiblity, concerned only about their careers and pension.
aazaa 7y ago
This article does a terrible job of explaining the specific threat. A few paragraphs in, buried, is this: > ... It took until last year for mattresses and furniture containing the highly toxic retardant deca-BDE to be banned, under European law, from sale. ... If that's the threat, then Wikipedia has a long way to catch up: > In 2004, ATSDR wrote "Nothing definite is known about the health effects of PBDEs in people. Practically all of the available information is from studies of laboratory animals. Animal studies indicate that commercial decaBDE mixtures are generally much less toxic than the products containing lower brominated PBDEs. Because of its very different toxicity, decaBDE is expected to have relatively little effect on the health of humans."[5] Based on animal studies, the possible health effects of decaBDE in humans involve the liver, thyroid, reproductive/developmental effects, and neurological effects.[25] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether
- sofarfromhome 7y ago
  Take a look at the Acknowledgement in that report, i.e the flame retardant industry funded it. There are numerous studies into the ill effects of DecaBDE and the fact it's been banned suggest these are well-founded. The flame retardant industry always hides behind their argument that you can't say that cancer was caused by that chemical. Even if that was true, the precautionary principle suggests not using them, especially when there is no evidence they improve fire safety. "The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency gratefully acknowledges the efforts of the Illinois Public Interest Research Group and the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum to provide the Agency with important information regarding the polybrominated diphenyl ethers, especially decabromodiphenyl ether, in meetings on July 25, 2005 and September 8, 2005, respectively, and through personal contacts. The information provided is greatly appreciated."
- busterarm 7y ago
  I mean, look at how they framed the article...that this is a scandal because of Brexit...because Brexit is designed to hide corruption. Even though the wheels started turning on all of this a few years ago. Even though the EU themselves only banned things in the last year. Rather than jumping into the actual story, they used it to push an entirely unrelated political narrative. Worse still, a lot of folks are going to see those first two paragraphs and not read the rest of the article.
CivBase 7y ago
I gave up on this article right away after the first paragraph hamfistedly tried to make it a brexit issue. I don't even have an opinion on brexit, but I have no faith in journalism that leads with something like that.
Ancalagon 7y ago
Side note, what about carpets? Admittedly I haven't read the article fully yet, but does my apartment's carpet also contain flame-retardants?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jhallenworld 7y ago
Urethane foam, aka "solidified hydrocarbons" should probably be banned... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snlhECzj1E8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snlhECzj1E8 https://foursevenfive.com/blog/reason-foam-fails-2-unacceptable-fire-hazard/ https://foursevenfive.com/blog/reason-foam-fails-2-unaccepta...
opinologo 7y ago
Any information about the usage of these chemicals in Australia?
- opinologo 7y ago
  https://www.thenaturalbeddingcompany.com.au/ https://www.thenaturalbeddingcompany.com.au/
aaron695 7y ago
This article is mostly FUD This is particularly funny - "Edge contends that many of the deaths at Grenfell Tower were likely to have been caused by toxic emissions from furnishings" But there are issues around this, and the way forward I think it getting pollution meters into peoples houses. We need to reduce PM 2.5 but VOCs also seem important, allow people to measure these. Start with the upper class and clean air, bottled water shows this is possible, make it cool.
musicale 7y ago
Haven't flame retardants in clothing been banned?

217 points by montalbano 7y ago

"According to parliament’s environmental audit committee (EAC), mothers in the UK and the US have the world’s highest recorded concentrations of a toxic class of flame retardants in their breastmilk" So this is a US thing too or what? I couldn't find anything else in the article mentioning the US.

Someone1234 7y ago
It has been widely reported in the US for years e.g. - https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/four-chemical-classes-cost-us-public-270-million-iq-points-over-15-years/4011087.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/four-chemical-classes-co... - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/this-everyday-chemical-was-cast-aside-its-replacement-might-be-making-cats-sick https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/this-everyday-chemical-... - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191213115438.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191213115438.h... - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191022080726.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191022080726.h...
tjr 7y ago
I imagine true of couches; certainly true of mattresses, per 16 CFR Part 1633, Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets. At least one company sells nontoxic mattresses: https://www.nontoxicbeds.com/ https://www.nontoxicbeds.com/

Someone1234 7y ago

The title is too clickbaity for such an interesting article otherwise. The fire retardants (and their problems/limitations) themselves are more interesting of a topic than the whole Brexit/EU spin that the title is trying to bait with. It is like someone tried to write an interesting article then someone else came along and said "How can be mix Brexit into this?" Particularly as this issue has been well known for over ten years, long before Brexit was a realistic thing and the UK solo could have done something without the EU if it had wanted.

Mediterraneo10 7y ago
> the UK solo could have done something without the EU if it had wanted. Could it? Wouldn’t one EU state banning products from sale due to the presence of chemicals not banned elsewhere in the EU, not go against the point of the Common Market?
- Someone1234 7y ago
  No. Each EU state enacts their own versions of EU regulation, including variances. This is already the case with multiple food items, video games (Germany), animal products, electrical systems, and furniture standards. The common market is a trade alliance with some regulatory back-stops. In this case if the UK banned these chemicals and required a safer flame retardant, it would likely be legal elsewhere in the EU anyway because as the article says the currently regulations are too vague on WHAT can be used (so manufacturers use the cheapest). Obviously none of which matters with Brexit. But historically the UK absolutely could have acted alone, as can other EU countries today.
  - detritus 7y ago
    Yup, which is a central core to the tragedy of how the EU was [mis-] sold to the UK populace and the idea of Brexit allowed to creep in over decades of gradual negative sublimation in the tabloid / right-wing press. We've always been free to choose much of our own course (blue passports anyone?), and we've also been as free as other EU states to break rules when it suited us. Beyond that, we were a part of the dialogue and could've pushed our points in within the European context. Instead we had the likes of Farage taking up seats in the EU parliament and adding absolutely nothing useful. And so, the various vying frontline political factions in Westminster managed to pin much of the discontent in the UK's political landscape on the EU, not itself. - ed clarified a line by adding '/ right wing'
namdnay 7y ago
Much as I like the Guardian, it seems that every single article they publish now has to mention Brexit in some way shape or form.

moltar 7y ago

The worst part is that application of fire retardants was not a science based solution. It was cigarette companies who lobbied pro fire retardants. People were setting furniture on fire while falling asleep with cig in hand. And instead of taking blame, they shifted focus and made the laws pass.

Ghjklov 7y ago
This sounds a bit weird to me. Why do cigarette companies take blame for people who smoke and cause fires while falling asleep during it? Do we blame knife manufacturers when a cook cuts himself?
- rgovostes 7y ago
  According to the documentary "Merchants of Doubt," there were modifications that could be made to cigarette design to reduce the likelihood of causing a fire, but the companies resisted changing their products.
  - klyrs 7y ago
    Do you remember what modifications were on the table? Kinda seems like a cigarette is a punk (in the pyrotechnic sense)... I'm having trouble seeing anything that would be effective without being annoying enough for people to work around.
    - namdnay 7y ago
      By changing the formula for the paper, you can have a cigarette that will go out if you don't drag on it for 30-60s, just like a hand-rolled. But obviously that's bad for business..
      - furgooswft13 7y ago
        > have a cigarette that will go out if you don't drag on it for 30-60s Have you smoked a cigarette recently (as in at least the past 10 years)?. This is absolutely what they do. I'm not sure what the exact flame out time is for any particular brand, but it's a real drag (ahem) for people who like to smoke slowly, as the first re-lit hit feels very harsh. According to Wikipedia[1] fire-safe cigarettes are required in all 50 states as of 2011. It's been awhile since I've smoked but I remember me and my friends bitching about the fire safe paper many years before that. We also theorized that it was making the cig more harsh in general. Of course we never had any evidence of this. I might be wrong about this, but it seems to me that simple paper + tobacco hand rolled cigs natural behavior would be to not flame out, or do so much more slowly. What's stopping it from continuing to burn? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_safe_cigarette#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_safe_cigarette#United_Sta...

gnicholas 7y ago

So where can people buy sofas and beds without these chemicals? I recently asked about this at Restoration Hardware (an expensive furniture store), and they had no idea about it.

sidewndr46 7y ago
At least in the US I think you'd have to make it yourself. I believe that mattresses are somehow exempt in the US? So the futon becomes a weird gray area. You can buy one with the express intent of using it only as a couch, but you put a mattress on it. I'm not 100% sure to be honest.
- cullenking 7y ago
  A few years back I bought a sofa from a small manufacturer that claimed it was free of fire retardants. Similar story for my mattress. The mattress side took some research, but from what I found most foam mattresses are free of them, and some manufacturers use a tightly woven cotton cover to get the fire retardant properties, rather than a cover treated with fire retardant chemicals. Do your own research, but from what I found it’s not too hard to be careful about this stuff.
  - sidewndr46 7y ago
    Looks like IKEA doesn't use brominated flame retardants. https://www.ikea.com/us/en/files/pdf/5c/df/5cdf003d/ikea_faq_flame_retardants.pdf https://www.ikea.com/us/en/files/pdf/5c/df/5cdf003d/ikea_faq... The underlying problem here is that furniture doesn't need flame retardants, period. You wind up with this weird mouse & cat game. A drive to replace one additive just find something new, previously unknown, and possibly worse. For example banning lead additives from gasoline was a good thing. It was replaced with MTBE which causes to groundwater contamination. This has now been banned in the US, which ironically sees ethanol replacing it. Ethanol production obviously predates gasoline, so it could have been used all along.
Someone1234 7y ago
All mass produced furniture has them. The only way to avoid is to find the last few vendors that build-to-order items like sofas, but then we're talking ultra-premium tier pricing (and are rare). Even the new flame retardant that they're using to replace the old one is considered dangerous. So there's no end in near sight to this problem. I don't know of a realistic/affordable solution for normal consumers, even with knowledge of the problem.

ptah 7y ago

is there a way to get a list of flame retardant chemicals on a product?

Aloha 7y ago

I think this comment from the original article sums things up nicely: "The 1988 regs are a total mess. They work for no one except the chemicals manufacturers and the most slapdash furniture manufacturers. They could be described as either over-regulation or under-regulation. In either case, it's the wrong regulation. But because they have created a certain kind of industry, that industry, with its sunk costs and established interests, wants them to stay as they are. And despite years of handwaving and consultations that go nowhere, governments have obliged."

tompccs 7y ago

This is an interesting and important topic buried under George Monbiot's usual political posturing and making any and every issue about Brexit. An example of where EU hasn't regulated properly is somehow supposed to automatically be made worse leaving the EU? He claims that the government is using Brexit as a distraction from this issue but then links to a parliamentary report as one of his primary sources. (I know parliament is not the same as the current government, but come on, this is not some kind of top-down conspiracy) Regulations frequently butt up against eachother. Making something non-flammable and non-toxic is obviously not trivial. I would love to understand more about this because there is almost certainly something worth investigating here but can we please give this to anyone but George Monbiot to write about.

sofarfromhome 7y ago

I'm the civil servant who was leading on the UK regs until 2015 when I was pushed out of the job for taking out a whistle-blower case. George Monbiot has done a good job overall and he asked me to clear the final draft. It's an immensely complicated mass of issues, with the hugely powerful flame retardant industry pulling the strings. They played a big part in setting up these Regulations in the first place; just like they did in the US. It's not going to get any better unless action is taken. Just yesterday, I met the civil servants currently responsible and under questioning, admitted they aren't going to change anything for at least another 9-12 years.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Any recommendations on how to more rapidly move the needle? Your work is appreciated!
- sofarfromhome 7y ago
  For a long time I was written off by government and industry as a lone maverick with a chip on his shoulder. But things have changed a lot over the last year, first with the report by the Environmental Audit Committee in July which agreed with my findings and bollocked the Department for Business to get on with changing things. Second - and having massive effects behind the scenes but coming more into play - was the formation of a contaminants group in the FBU. The two guys behind it were outraged to discover only recently (and much of it from my website) that for 30 years they've been exposed to massively toxic fires without even been told about it by their management. Part of the problem there is corrupt fire safety officials in the pay of the flame retardant industry. So in a short space of time, we've had people running for cover, resigning from committees and being axed from their jobs for corruption. What else will move things on? Get your MP to write to the Department for Business. I met them yesterday and while they're crapping themselves about the attention that's now on them, they admitted that in effect they're not going to make any changes to these Regulations for another 9-12 years. I spelled out to them that that means we're going to continue poisoning our children as they sleep but these people have segmented minds and somehow avoid taking any responsiblity, concerned only about their careers and pension.

aazaa 7y ago

This article does a terrible job of explaining the specific threat. A few paragraphs in, buried, is this: > ... It took until last year for mattresses and furniture containing the highly toxic retardant deca-BDE to be banned, under European law, from sale. ... If that's the threat, then Wikipedia has a long way to catch up: > In 2004, ATSDR wrote "Nothing definite is known about the health effects of PBDEs in people. Practically all of the available information is from studies of laboratory animals. Animal studies indicate that commercial decaBDE mixtures are generally much less toxic than the products containing lower brominated PBDEs. Because of its very different toxicity, decaBDE is expected to have relatively little effect on the health of humans."[5] Based on animal studies, the possible health effects of decaBDE in humans involve the liver, thyroid, reproductive/developmental effects, and neurological effects.[25] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether

sofarfromhome 7y ago
Take a look at the Acknowledgement in that report, i.e the flame retardant industry funded it. There are numerous studies into the ill effects of DecaBDE and the fact it's been banned suggest these are well-founded. The flame retardant industry always hides behind their argument that you can't say that cancer was caused by that chemical. Even if that was true, the precautionary principle suggests not using them, especially when there is no evidence they improve fire safety. "The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency gratefully acknowledges the efforts of the Illinois Public Interest Research Group and the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum to provide the Agency with important information regarding the polybrominated diphenyl ethers, especially decabromodiphenyl ether, in meetings on July 25, 2005 and September 8, 2005, respectively, and through personal contacts. The information provided is greatly appreciated."
busterarm 7y ago
I mean, look at how they framed the article...that this is a scandal because of Brexit...because Brexit is designed to hide corruption. Even though the wheels started turning on all of this a few years ago. Even though the EU themselves only banned things in the last year. Rather than jumping into the actual story, they used it to push an entirely unrelated political narrative. Worse still, a lot of folks are going to see those first two paragraphs and not read the rest of the article.

CivBase 7y ago

I gave up on this article right away after the first paragraph hamfistedly tried to make it a brexit issue. I don't even have an opinion on brexit, but I have no faith in journalism that leads with something like that.

Ancalagon 7y ago

Side note, what about carpets? Admittedly I haven't read the article fully yet, but does my apartment's carpet also contain flame-retardants?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jhallenworld 7y ago

Urethane foam, aka "solidified hydrocarbons" should probably be banned... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snlhECzj1E8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snlhECzj1E8 https://foursevenfive.com/blog/reason-foam-fails-2-unacceptable-fire-hazard/ https://foursevenfive.com/blog/reason-foam-fails-2-unaccepta...

opinologo 7y ago

Any information about the usage of these chemicals in Australia?

opinologo 7y ago
https://www.thenaturalbeddingcompany.com.au/ https://www.thenaturalbeddingcompany.com.au/

aaron695 7y ago

This article is mostly FUD This is particularly funny - "Edge contends that many of the deaths at Grenfell Tower were likely to have been caused by toxic emissions from furnishings" But there are issues around this, and the way forward I think it getting pollution meters into peoples houses. We need to reduce PM 2.5 but VOCs also seem important, allow people to measure these. Start with the upper class and clean air, bottled water shows this is possible, make it cool.

musicale 7y ago

Haven't flame retardants in clothing been banned?