3 ms·

Your coffee maker is exposed to at most 100 degrees C. Spatulas are exposed to temperatures over 200 C. Instinctively, I'm much more worried about the latter,

Your coffee maker is exposed to at most 100 degrees C. Spatulas are exposed to temperatures over 200 C. Instinctively, I'm much more worried about the latter, though I admittedly don't know anything about the science behind what temperatures flame retardants or other undesirable contaminants might leach out of the plastic.

Aachen 2y ago
Might not matter: The article also speaks of a black necklace for children that was found to be 3% flame retardant chemicals by weight, saying > Those flame retardants migrate into toddlers’ saliva and into the dust in our homes Perhaps it's fine if you don't lick your coffee machine, or perhaps not. I guess being less worried makes sense but I'm not sure that we need not be worried about boiling our drinks in fire retardants (assuming they're present in these materials)
- infecto 2y ago
  Ugh you reminded me how much I hate flame retardants and the horrible laws we have in America that have us spray it everywhere. I was just recently looking at bicycle seats for small kids and the one I found interesting happened to recently have a recall (Thule) as they grossly over applied the flame retardant to a point where it was immediately toxic. I am guessing it was in the foam pieces but such a depressing idea that we need to make outdoor bicycle seats flame retardant.
  - reginald78 2y ago
    Why exactly do bicycle seats and toddler necklace toys need to be flame retardant again?
    - infecto 2y ago
      The necklace, that sounded like a byproduct of recycling plastic. In general though, through the 50s-70s there were some tragic events where people died in fires. Part of this is federal legislation, part of this is California who required household furnishings to withstand an open flame. Most of the legislation still stands, some of it like CA's has been reduced to a smolder test but it still requires some retardants. People don't pay attention to this one but its in everything, mattresses, couches, baby sleep wear. And for me, a bigger issue than PFAS.
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      The people of the 1970s clutched their pearls and wrung their hands about flammable sofas in the same way that we today clutch our pearls and wring our hands about leeching plastics. The breathless articles were mostly the same except they were in places like Readers Digest instead of The Atlantic. As another commenter stated laws were passed but more so than that the companies who make things were concerned about lawsuits and reputation damage so treating consumer textiles for flame retardants just became standard industry practice. As an aside, I know a historical reenacter who had a need to make some char-cloth. The only thing he could find that wasn't treated was cotton work gloves.
  - fooblaster 2y ago
    Are there particularly bad flame retardants to avoid? why is it bad?
    - infecto 2y ago
      All of them, I don't believe they serve any to the net of society and probably harm more individuals than protect.. YMMV like everything, flame retardants are generally just like PFAS, they are forever chemicals. The mains ones used up until the 2000-2013s were PBDEs, these bio-accumulate just like PFAS. THe EU and US have switched to alternatives but I don't believe these to be any better, just newer.

Aachen 2y ago

Might not matter: The article also speaks of a black necklace for children that was found to be 3% flame retardant chemicals by weight, saying > Those flame retardants migrate into toddlers’ saliva and into the dust in our homes Perhaps it's fine if you don't lick your coffee machine, or perhaps not. I guess being less worried makes sense but I'm not sure that we need not be worried about boiling our drinks in fire retardants (assuming they're present in these materials)

infecto 2y ago
Ugh you reminded me how much I hate flame retardants and the horrible laws we have in America that have us spray it everywhere. I was just recently looking at bicycle seats for small kids and the one I found interesting happened to recently have a recall (Thule) as they grossly over applied the flame retardant to a point where it was immediately toxic. I am guessing it was in the foam pieces but such a depressing idea that we need to make outdoor bicycle seats flame retardant.
- reginald78 2y ago
  Why exactly do bicycle seats and toddler necklace toys need to be flame retardant again?
  - infecto 2y ago
    The necklace, that sounded like a byproduct of recycling plastic. In general though, through the 50s-70s there were some tragic events where people died in fires. Part of this is federal legislation, part of this is California who required household furnishings to withstand an open flame. Most of the legislation still stands, some of it like CA's has been reduced to a smolder test but it still requires some retardants. People don't pay attention to this one but its in everything, mattresses, couches, baby sleep wear. And for me, a bigger issue than PFAS.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    The people of the 1970s clutched their pearls and wrung their hands about flammable sofas in the same way that we today clutch our pearls and wring our hands about leeching plastics. The breathless articles were mostly the same except they were in places like Readers Digest instead of The Atlantic. As another commenter stated laws were passed but more so than that the companies who make things were concerned about lawsuits and reputation damage so treating consumer textiles for flame retardants just became standard industry practice. As an aside, I know a historical reenacter who had a need to make some char-cloth. The only thing he could find that wasn't treated was cotton work gloves.
- fooblaster 2y ago
  Are there particularly bad flame retardants to avoid? why is it bad?
  - infecto 2y ago
    All of them, I don't believe they serve any to the net of society and probably harm more individuals than protect.. YMMV like everything, flame retardants are generally just like PFAS, they are forever chemicals. The mains ones used up until the 2000-2013s were PBDEs, these bio-accumulate just like PFAS. THe EU and US have switched to alternatives but I don't believe these to be any better, just newer.