4 ms·

There’s many mandatory flammability tests for upholstery in the US related to cigarette ignition and spread. I wonder what would happen if cigarettes were fully

There’s many mandatory flammability tests for upholstery in the US related to cigarette ignition and spread. I wonder what would happen if cigarettes were fully banned, would we keep the test method?

bell-cot 2y ago
[Cuba Libre Cigar Co. stands by, ready to assist]
parsimo2010 2y ago
I imagine that the tests wouldn't go away completely, they might just be modified to make sure that a faulty Juul or other vape box doesn't cause them to burn. But probably nothing would change for several years, because just because you outlaw cigarettes that doesn't mean people are going to quit overnight. And then if you outlawed vapes then I'm sure there's still some other fire hazard to worry about and they would modify the tests again.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  Hopefully they're rolled back to sane levels. Clothing flammability tests/requirements were more or less an overkill response to a moral panic in the 1970s when the media took and ran with some questionable stories about flammable kids clothing and whatnot. Furniture and drapery are/were of legitimate concern but as we all know it's never just the tip.
  - daveguy 2y ago
    If you'd like to learn about the actual origin of flammable clothing restrictions and the difference the regulations made, here is a good summary: https://www.parent.com/blogs/conversations/2023-why-are-we-all-so-terrified-of-pajama-fires https://www.parent.com/blogs/conversations/2023-why-are-we-a...
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      I didn't know the moral panic went so far back. I'm only familiar with it starting in the 70s (at the time it was very much a 2nd tier moral panic riding the coatails of the hazards of smoking). While nobody wants more crispy children what that article isn't telling you is that there are a lot of fabric flame retardants are safe in that they haven't been proven unsafe. Fine for your couch, curtains, etc. But stuff you're gonna wear every day, IDK man. Not sure I want literally everyone to have level of exposure to chemicals for their entire life.
      - daveguy 2y ago
        Did you even read it? Here you go, buddy: > [Referring to a Gene Autry costume that had over 100 lawsuits over the burn victims] The cowboy suit and other similar incidents were the impetus for the 1953 passage of the Flammable Fabrics Act, which regulated, among other things, which fabrics could be used for clothing. No more rayon pile chaps for kids (or brushed rayon sweaters for women), as such items had become famous for creating what were widely reported at the time as "human torches."
        potato3732842 2y ago
        >Did you even read it? >Here you go, buddy: If I didn't read it why would I say something like "I didn't know the moral panic went so far back"?. Like I said, I'm familiar with the actual standards for flammability that didn't come about until the early 1970s and resulted in the textile industry adding flame retardants to everything. I have no idea what they were legislating in the 1950s but it wasn't the whole industry. Regardless, the point which you seem to be missing is that it's not clear how good for everybody it is to be living their whole lives in and around clothes and textiles that are treated with flame retardant chemicals that are safe in the same way that pesticides and sketchy plastics are safe. Edit: I was right, turns out the 1953 law is basically "don't sell anything that's more flammable than typical" https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/1609.1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/1609.1
        2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

bell-cot 2y ago

[Cuba Libre Cigar Co. stands by, ready to assist]

parsimo2010 2y ago

I imagine that the tests wouldn't go away completely, they might just be modified to make sure that a faulty Juul or other vape box doesn't cause them to burn. But probably nothing would change for several years, because just because you outlaw cigarettes that doesn't mean people are going to quit overnight. And then if you outlawed vapes then I'm sure there's still some other fire hazard to worry about and they would modify the tests again.

potato3732842 2y ago
Hopefully they're rolled back to sane levels. Clothing flammability tests/requirements were more or less an overkill response to a moral panic in the 1970s when the media took and ran with some questionable stories about flammable kids clothing and whatnot. Furniture and drapery are/were of legitimate concern but as we all know it's never just the tip.
- daveguy 2y ago
  If you'd like to learn about the actual origin of flammable clothing restrictions and the difference the regulations made, here is a good summary: https://www.parent.com/blogs/conversations/2023-why-are-we-all-so-terrified-of-pajama-fires https://www.parent.com/blogs/conversations/2023-why-are-we-a...
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    I didn't know the moral panic went so far back. I'm only familiar with it starting in the 70s (at the time it was very much a 2nd tier moral panic riding the coatails of the hazards of smoking). While nobody wants more crispy children what that article isn't telling you is that there are a lot of fabric flame retardants are safe in that they haven't been proven unsafe. Fine for your couch, curtains, etc. But stuff you're gonna wear every day, IDK man. Not sure I want literally everyone to have level of exposure to chemicals for their entire life.
    - daveguy 2y ago
      Did you even read it? Here you go, buddy: > [Referring to a Gene Autry costume that had over 100 lawsuits over the burn victims] The cowboy suit and other similar incidents were the impetus for the 1953 passage of the Flammable Fabrics Act, which regulated, among other things, which fabrics could be used for clothing. No more rayon pile chaps for kids (or brushed rayon sweaters for women), as such items had become famous for creating what were widely reported at the time as "human torches."
      - potato3732842 2y ago
        >Did you even read it? >Here you go, buddy: If I didn't read it why would I say something like "I didn't know the moral panic went so far back"?. Like I said, I'm familiar with the actual standards for flammability that didn't come about until the early 1970s and resulted in the textile industry adding flame retardants to everything. I have no idea what they were legislating in the 1950s but it wasn't the whole industry. Regardless, the point which you seem to be missing is that it's not clear how good for everybody it is to be living their whole lives in and around clothes and textiles that are treated with flame retardant chemicals that are safe in the same way that pesticides and sketchy plastics are safe. Edit: I was right, turns out the 1953 law is basically "don't sell anything that's more flammable than typical" https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/1609.1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/1609.1
        2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]