2 ms·
> It is better for everyone. It really is. Except of course when they get it wrong and have to reverse course, as seen in the news over the last several years
by zerocrates 12y ago
> It is better for everyone. It really is.
Except of course when they get it wrong and have to reverse course, as seen in the news over the last several years in the case of flame retardants for furniture.
- rwallace 12y agoWhat's the latest verdict on flame retardants? Last I heard, the conclusion was that they are carcinogenic, but you have to weigh the risk of dying of cancer in twenty years against the risk of dying in a fire tomorrow, and the best guess seemed to be that they save more lives than they cost.
- zerocrates 12y agoLately, the dialogue is skewed against flame retardant treatments, though this is probably as much because of Toxic Hot Seat as anything else. So, my sense of the current "wisdom" is that the cancer and toxicity issues are significant, especially for firefighters, and the retardants offer relatively little protection against fires. A big factor in the turnaround is that the California standards were primarily concerned about protecting against dropped lit cigarettes, and so many fewer people smoke, particularly indoors.