4 ms·

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

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.
  - buckminster 7y ago
    FBU = Fire Brigades Union
    - sofarfromhome 7y ago
      Thanks. A guy called Dave Sibert was for years the full time paid FBU rep for fire safety. He played a major role in blocking changes to the Furniture Regs, which would have hugely reduced flame retardants. It was pretty common knowledge he was in the pay of the industry; indeed, Matt Wrack of the FBU finally sacked Sibert for colluding with industry. The guy is a sociopath: he was actually prolonging a situation that poisons his own people on a daily basis, for personal profit.
      - jl6 7y ago
        Heavy claim against a named individual... can you back it up?
  - easytiger 7y ago
    > Part of the problem there is corrupt fire safety officials in the pay of the flame retardant industry. What's the evidence for this claim?
    - surewhynat 7y ago
      Approving carcinogens for residential use.
      - easytiger 7y ago
        How is that evidence of the claim?
        wizzwizz4 7y ago
        The alternative is that they're just that evil, that they're doing it for the lolz. So no, it's not strict evidence.
ajb 7y ago
Dumb question: I've just bought a foam mattress (in the UK). How do I know if it contains flame retardants?
- fredley 7y ago
  Short answer: if you bought it in the UK, it contains flame retardants. By law all soft furnishing must be treated with flame retardant chemicals in order to be eligible for sale.
  - jackhack 7y ago
    The problem may be more widespread than first considered - flame retardant chemicals are mandated for large categories of children's sleepwear. Surely direct-to-skin contact (absorption?) is at least as great a threat as off-gassing chemicals from a sofa or mattress.
    - wizzwizz4 7y ago
      If it says "KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE" in red lettering on the label, it probably doesn't have flame retardants. Though there may be false positives to this test (but no false negatives), so preferably look for something like no flame retardants.
      - sofarfromhome 7y ago
        That's completely wrong. That label has nothing to do with flame retardants. Almost all UK furniture contains FRs but there is no law at the moment that requires manufacturers to list them or even say if they use them at all.
  - sofarfromhome 7y ago
    Yes, UK furniture almost always contains flame retardants but it isn't law that they have to use them. The Furniture Regs set performance requirements but don't stipulate how you meet them. It's just that using FRs is the cheapest route to compliance for manufacturers.
probably_wrong 7y ago
> they aren't going to change anything for at least another 9-12 years. That's an oddly specific timeframe. Any reason for that? Is there an agreement that due to be renewed by then or something?
- sofarfromhome 7y ago
  They held a workshop for stakeholders a couple of weeks ago. And while they tried to hide the time involved it broke down like this: 2 years for them to get their "essential safety requirements" in place (which is itself wildly optimistic, given they've essentially did that for over 11 years and say they're now starting again. Then the go to British Standards. The British Standards rep then butted in to say they will need 5 years (again, wildly optimistic). When I met them on Tuesday I said they will need to add another two to that for consultation and implementation, which they actually agreed with. That makes 9 years - at an absolute minimum. Industry will want 2 years run-in too, making 11. I'm saying more like 15 because given what they're trying to do, that's more realistic. In practice they're not planning to implement anything.
anitil 7y ago
I've heard a similar issue in the design of train furnishings. There was a large overhaul of fine retardant material after a tragic South Korean train disaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu_subway_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu_subway_fire). I'm not sure what is the right call is in the train case, because they have the same toxicity issue, interesting to hear it in this context. It makes me wonder if there is more to this story given your allegations

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.
- buckminster 7y ago
  FBU = Fire Brigades Union
  - sofarfromhome 7y ago
    Thanks. A guy called Dave Sibert was for years the full time paid FBU rep for fire safety. He played a major role in blocking changes to the Furniture Regs, which would have hugely reduced flame retardants. It was pretty common knowledge he was in the pay of the industry; indeed, Matt Wrack of the FBU finally sacked Sibert for colluding with industry. The guy is a sociopath: he was actually prolonging a situation that poisons his own people on a daily basis, for personal profit.
    - jl6 7y ago
      Heavy claim against a named individual... can you back it up?
- easytiger 7y ago
  > Part of the problem there is corrupt fire safety officials in the pay of the flame retardant industry. What's the evidence for this claim?
  - surewhynat 7y ago
    Approving carcinogens for residential use.
    - easytiger 7y ago
      How is that evidence of the claim?
      - wizzwizz4 7y ago
        The alternative is that they're just that evil, that they're doing it for the lolz. So no, it's not strict evidence.

ajb 7y ago

Dumb question: I've just bought a foam mattress (in the UK). How do I know if it contains flame retardants?

fredley 7y ago
Short answer: if you bought it in the UK, it contains flame retardants. By law all soft furnishing must be treated with flame retardant chemicals in order to be eligible for sale.
- jackhack 7y ago
  The problem may be more widespread than first considered - flame retardant chemicals are mandated for large categories of children's sleepwear. Surely direct-to-skin contact (absorption?) is at least as great a threat as off-gassing chemicals from a sofa or mattress.
  - wizzwizz4 7y ago
    If it says "KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE" in red lettering on the label, it probably doesn't have flame retardants. Though there may be false positives to this test (but no false negatives), so preferably look for something like no flame retardants.
    - sofarfromhome 7y ago
      That's completely wrong. That label has nothing to do with flame retardants. Almost all UK furniture contains FRs but there is no law at the moment that requires manufacturers to list them or even say if they use them at all.
- sofarfromhome 7y ago
  Yes, UK furniture almost always contains flame retardants but it isn't law that they have to use them. The Furniture Regs set performance requirements but don't stipulate how you meet them. It's just that using FRs is the cheapest route to compliance for manufacturers.

probably_wrong 7y ago

> they aren't going to change anything for at least another 9-12 years. That's an oddly specific timeframe. Any reason for that? Is there an agreement that due to be renewed by then or something?

sofarfromhome 7y ago
They held a workshop for stakeholders a couple of weeks ago. And while they tried to hide the time involved it broke down like this: 2 years for them to get their "essential safety requirements" in place (which is itself wildly optimistic, given they've essentially did that for over 11 years and say they're now starting again. Then the go to British Standards. The British Standards rep then butted in to say they will need 5 years (again, wildly optimistic). When I met them on Tuesday I said they will need to add another two to that for consultation and implementation, which they actually agreed with. That makes 9 years - at an absolute minimum. Industry will want 2 years run-in too, making 11. I'm saying more like 15 because given what they're trying to do, that's more realistic. In practice they're not planning to implement anything.

anitil 7y ago

I've heard a similar issue in the design of train furnishings. There was a large overhaul of fine retardant material after a tragic South Korean train disaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu_subway_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daegu_subway_fire). I'm not sure what is the right call is in the train case, because they have the same toxicity issue, interesting to hear it in this context. It makes me wonder if there is more to this story given your allegations