The Fire Retardant Dilemma is one of these issues that have started to receive some media and public attention for their short and long-term effects on our health and the environment. As I rediscovered last Friday at the 4th Symposium on this topic, the urgency of addressing the issue of fire retardant chemicals has to do with several upcoming meetings (1) that might seal the presence of brominated and chlorinated hydrocarbons in many household and office products for the next decade (or longer) all over the US. It is also an issue that could have a pervasive effect in how we address such issues: it is not about whether we are in favor or against fire retardants but rather which ones should be used to delay or prevent the ignition of such items as bedding, mattresses, upholstered furniture, TVs, VCRs, monitors, computers and so on.

In other words, and like any reasonable individuals we could be tempted to address this issue in the form of two questions, which might well result in a cacophonic of deafening exchange of pro-this and pro-that:
1- the first one is about safety:
Do you want your bed, sofa, TV, computer and other furniture, electronics and appliances to be built with chemicals that would delay these products’ ignition in case of a fire?
2- the other one about health:
Would you accept in your home any product that are built with chemicals known to be toxic to humans, animals and the environment, and release deadly toxic fumes in case of a fire?

I answered the same. But I am very well aware how easy to formulate a question and get the (expected) answer when we are not given all the facts and issues at hand. In this post I’ll be spending more time on what make fire retardant so controversial in the first place, than addressing the health and environmental impact of the most used and toxic fire retardant chemicals, since the information has already been collected, studied and articulated by a well recognized and respected expert on this issue (and the the organizer of this symposium): Dr. Arlene Blum.

Dr. Arlene Blum, through Initiative for Green Science and Policy, has been very active in presenting the case against chlorinated and brominated hydrocarbons in our homes in front of policy makers and regulators. Many of us are too young to remember that until she and Dr. Bruce Ames demonstrated the health impact of brominated and chlorinated hydrocarbons (also called Tris) flame retardants, kids in the the 70s grew up wearing sleepwear containing bromine, chlorine or phosphates esters after the Flammable Fabrics Act of 1953 was tighten in 1972. These toxic chemicals bio-accumulated in children’s body to alarming levels (up to 29mg/ml or 2.9% in urine test), enough to be banned in 1977. “So I was astonished to learn recently that the same chlorinated Tris that I helped eliminate from children’s pajamas is being used today in the foam inside furniture sold in California to meet standards there for fire retardancy, and that the state is considering similar standards for pillows, comforters and mattress pads. The federal safety commission, following California’s lead, is working to set a national standard for fire-retardant furniture.” She writes in The New York Times over a year ago.

Delaying combustion.
Flame retardant chemicals are primarily added to the foam to reduce an open flame risk such as cigarettes, matches and candles that would inadvertently come in contact with our bed, sofa, chairs and other furniture. Much of the foam used in chairs (including beanbag chairs), couches, mattresses is polyurethane foam, a flammable polymer. So, without looking too much into it, it makes sense to add a flame retardant. Let me remind us, at this point of the post that not all flame/fire retardant are as dangerous or toxic as the ones Dr. Arlene Blum is fighting and the issue at stake is not whether or not we should ban fire retardant but which ones should be used. Unfortunately, some are pushing for more stringent flammability tests that would require the use of brominated and chlorinated hydrocarbons (2). A state has already made mandatory such standard for all residential upholstered furniture.

Little impact or little evidence
California is the only state to have adopted a furniture flammability standard (FFS) some 26 years ago. For which results? Hard to tell as data highlighting its benefits are either not gathered or not published. For instance, we know, at the national level, that mattresses, bedding and upholstered furniture are the first items ignited for most home structure fatal fires started by smoking materials, but we do not know the proportion of these items that did or did not contain flame retardants, and even less the type of chemicals and their quantity in the foam nationwide or by state. If we were to compare California with other states (which is what the proponents of tougher to meet standards are doing), we’ll find that California experiences one of the lowest home fire deaths (6.4 d/million) in the nation behind Colorado, Utah and Hawaii. There are actually 22 states that have less than 10 civilian fire deaths per million people. What is the proportion of chlorinated and brominated flame retardants in mattresses, beddings and furniture in these homes? Don’t know. Of the only two other pieces of valuable information, one has to do with decline in fire deaths rate over a five-year period (1980/4 and 1995/9): 32% for California. New York 40%, Illinois and Ohio 39%, and Texas 33% are ahead. The other one dates back 1994 (20 years after the implementation of California’s FFS) and shows this state has experienced a rate of 2.4 deaths per 100 upholstered furniture fire in comparison to 4.76 for the rest of the US. Wow! What? People are still dying of upholstered furniture fire in California? Let’s go a bit deeper in what could really save lives.

Maintenance and prevention
What we know (as to what is available to the ones who enjoy digging) are information related to the type of home fires (items first ignited), the ones due to smoking materials and some elements helping us better understand how fire deaths and injuries could have been prevented. I have memories of my mom telling stories about her younger brother who, during his student’s years would systemically fall asleep with a burning cigarette (she still has the bed sheets). There was no fire retardant 45 years ago and the mattress or cotton sheet never caught fire. But they did elsewhere. To which proportion? Hard to tell. According to the US Fire Administration and the National Fire Protection Administration 2005 US Home Structures Fires Report, smoking material (i.e. tobacco products) was the leading cause of civilian home fire deaths (an estimated 29% or 800 deaths) but ranked only 5th in cause of fire (7% or 19,000). Candles accounted for 5% of home fires and 150 deaths. The same report notes that upholstered furniture, mattress and bedding accounted respectively for 3% and 2% amongst all “item first ignited” although they are on top of the list (13% and 21%) when it comes to civilian deaths (average over 2000-2004). These data are and will be used by the groups promoting the presence of flame retardant in our homes. There is no mention of electronics such as TV and computers as a cause of fire and fire deaths.

However, what do they really say? Cigarettes kill? We knew that already. And the 28 states that have not made mandatory the Reduced Ignition Propensity cigarettes (self-extinguished when left unattended) should do so immediately as they appear to reduce fire deaths by 50% to 66%.

Another data of interest is which part of the day fires are most likely to occur: there are no picks recorded, but the prevalence is between 4PM and 9PM. Fire deaths tend to occur at night between 11:00PM and 6:00PM. To this, let’s point out that 74% of reported home fire deaths result from fires in homes with no or non-operating smoke alarms!!!

Bear with me, I’m nearly done with the numbers. If you break down home fires and fire deaths by age groups, the one most likely to set up fire with smoking materials and die from it are 65 y.o. and over (they represent 12% of the population and 34% of deaths and only 21% of injuries). As for California, I have been unsuccessful in finding any data that I could use to compare the efficiency of its furniture flammability standard.

So the case that flame retardant can actually save lives is not to be demonstrated. They have, they do, they will … but their impact is meaningless compared to a working smoke detector or a smoker smoking outside (how about not smoking at all?). The unfortunate higher proportion of elderly is mainly due to lack of mobility, medication, alcohol and cigarettes.
Health hazard
The presence of chlorinated and brominated chemicals in furniture and electronics is adding another health and environmental burden to the already long list of chemicals that bio-accumulate in our bodies, food and air. Like so many chemical compounds they do not “stay still”. They break down becoming invasive invisible particles that we inhale or suck in (18 occurrences of finger to mouth in children). They come into our body and never leave. Scared? Better be, it’s real. Anywhere between 7 to 10 hours of repeated and prolonged exposure to chlorinated and broninated hydrocarbons for a lifetime. Not including your time on the sofa, office chair and in your car. And like many of their cousins they affect pregnant and nursing women (placenta and breast milk).

Oh, I forgot: they are probable carcinogens and have been found to be mutagens and endocrine disruptors. I’ll keep for myself what I have read of the possible effects of these toxins on a human body. No I can’t: glands (genitals, breast) reduction or atrophy, infertility, brain development, birth defects, and the list goes on.

Environmental hazard
These are highly persistent chemical compounds once released in nature. They have been found in Polar bears – which have not been seen in California yet, which means that the food these mammals ate probably contained a high level of PCB and PBDE (acronyms for these nasty chemicals), fish, whales, seals, birds, water streams, and so on. The aquatic environment is not the only one that is carrying the burden.

These products are not easily disposable or recyclable. When they are, the foam is used to build products like pet beds. The foam itself, bounded with chlorinated and brominated chemicals can hardly be broken down into their chemical state. Instead, they are bound forever and will be used for the same or other applications.

But recycling is an expensive process, and after the usual separation of ferrous metals, they are usually disposed off in landfills. But probably the worst that can happen is to burn them (how ironic). They’ll release deadly toxic fumes that ultimately will add to the level of carbon dioxide our planet cannot afford any longer. But before, they would have caused extreme damages to who ever would have inhaled these fumes.

Why trading fire risks for chemical toxicity risks?
In light of these facts and assessments is it necessary to add fire retardants to every piece of furniture and electronic in our homes? And if it is, shouldn’t we start assessing solutions that actually do not pose a health hazard to our children? Dr. Arlene Blum believes “equivalent or greater fire safety can be achieved with new technologies and materials, furniture design, and green chemistry.”

I’d like to conclude this post with the words of Dr. Donald Kennedy, Editor-in-Chief of Science. “The problem is a national one. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Reform Act (S 2045) toyed with a provision that would rush us into a national furniture flammability standard. That’s premature, because it leaves no time to develop a safe way to reduce furniture flammability and puts potentially persistent toxic chemicals into U.S. homes. Congress should forget that approach. The real problem is that the U.S. regulatory system for toxic industrial chemicals is not effective and is a threat to public health.”

Please, visit Initiative for Green Science Policy, Dr. Blum’s web site and spend time reading the materials provided by scientists, physicians, industry professionals and environmentalists (each conference has its own set of presentations). http://www.greensciencepolicy.org/conferences.shtml
The more you learn the better you respond.
If you have only time to read a few, go to Part IV and download:
- Arlene Blum, Ph.D., Visiting Scholar, UC Berkeley; Review of The Fire Retardant Dilemma Parts I-III
- Mytro Petreas, Ph.D., MPH, Environmental Chemistry Laboratory Dept of Toxic Substances Control; PBDEs in California Waste Streams

(1) A couple of examples of standards set to be decided in 2007:

I. New International Open Flame Retardant Standard for All Electronic Enclosures
Worldwide electronics industry standard, IEC 62368, would require all plastic enclosures for consumer electronic products such as printers, faxes, TVs to resist an open flame from the outside, starting in 2008. Recycling will be more expensive or impossible; BFR and CFR treated plastic gives of dioxins and furans upon combustion; and there are health and environmental concerns. All plastic doesn’t require this level of FR protection. Design strategy can be used instead to minimize FR and allow materials to be nontoxic and recyclable at end of life. Impetus for this standard came from chemical industry’s continued search for new market opportunities.

II California TB604 Bed Clothing Flammability Standard
A rigorous open flame bed clothing flammability standard which would lead to inherent fibers (composed of toxic monomers) or very high levels of
fire retardant chemicals in filled bed clothing including pillows,
comforters, mattress pads forever.
CPSC is working on a similar standard for the entire country

III Furniture Related ICC Code Changes in 2008 Proposed by the NASFM

More here

(2) chlorinated paraffins, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB), pentabromodiphenyl ether (pentaBDE), octabromodiphenyl ether (octaBDE), decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE), hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), tri-o-cresyl phosphate, tris(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate (TRIS), bis(2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate, tris(1-aziridinyl)-phosphine oxide (TEPA), and others.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS