Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

Schrag: Yes on 8 Campaign Tries to Scare and Mislead Voters into Writing Ban on Same Sex Marriage into California Constitution
Our Gilded Age Implodes: Will Democrats Fashion a New Social Contract, Rebuild America’s Foundation, and Restore Our Country to Prosperity?
California’s State Budget and Our Economy Will Be Strengthened by Passage of Prop 1A and High Speed Rail
We Need To Be Bold and Reject Calls for Neo Hooverism
How would McCain's and Obama's Policies Affect the States - Part 1
Arnold's Freedom to Choose: Subprime Lending Regulation and the Bubble in California
California and the Nation’s Financial Mess: It’s About Transparency

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Books

The Truth About Brominated and Chlorinated Fire Retardants and Why They Should be Banned in California

By Arlene Blum, Ph.D

[Editor's note: AB 706 (Leno) would ban the use of brominated and chlorinated fire retardants in furniture, mattresses, and other bedding products, in California and is target of TV ads, mailers, robo calls and full page ads are running in every major media market in our state. The bromine industry, sometimes known at the Bromine Science Environmental Forum, is paying for the ads under the guise: “Californians for Fire Safety”. They are actually comprised of 4 out of state multinational corporations – Albemarle Corporation, ICL Industrial Products, Chemtura, and Tosoh Corporation.]

Thirty years ago, as a researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, I published papers in Science magazine calling for the ban of brominated and chlorinated Tris, two flame retardants used in children’s sleepwear. Both forms of Tris caused mutations in DNA, and leached from pajamas into children’s bodies. In 1977, when brominated Tris was found to be a potent carcinogen, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned Tris from children’s sleepwear.

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.

Unfortunately, the most effective and inexpensive way for manufacturers to meet such standards is to treat bedding and furniture with brominated and chlorinated hydrocarbons like Tris. Though the chemical industry insists that they are safe, when tested in animals most chemicals in this family have been found to cause health problems like cancer, sterility, thyroid disorders, endocrine disruption, developmental impairment or birth defects, even at very low doses.

Many of these chemicals are long-lived and accumulate, especially in people and other animals high on the food chain. For example, PCBs, chlorinated chemicals that were also used as flame retardants, were banned in 1977, but very high concentrations can still be found in many creatures, including dead killer whales washed ashore in British Columbia.

According to the polyurethane-foam industry, if the new federal standard for furniture were similar to the California standard, using current technology, then an estimated 17 million pounds of fire-retardant chemicals, mostly brominated and chlorinated hydrocarbons, would be used annually. (A more rigorous standard also being considered by the safety commission would require up to 70 million pounds of chemicals a year, the industry says. Some of that could eventually end up in people and the environment.)
To complicate matters, consumers wouldn’t know whether the sofa they’re curled up on had been treated with Tris or its cousins. The United States does not require labeling on furniture contents.

All this is not to say that furniture fires don’t pose a danger. According to a recent report from the commission, 560 Americans died in house fires that started in upholstered furniture in 2003. But by contrast, cancer killed more than 500,000.

What makes the potential increased use of chlorinated and brominated fire retardants all the more troubling is that it comes at a time when the risk of furniture fires is receding.

Most fatal furniture fires are caused by cigarettes, which typically smolder for half an hour after being put down. The good news is that after decades of opposition from the cigarette industry, cigarettes that extinguish themselves within minutes are now mandatory in New York State and laws have been passed requiring them in five other states. They are likely to become universal in the United States in the near future, thereby greatly reducing the risk of furniture fires — and the need for chemical treatments.

So why are we still using these potentially dangerous chemicals?

In the United States, chemicals are innocent until proven guilty: we wait until someone has been harmed by exposure to chemicals before regulating them. This is not an effective strategy, since most cancers occur 20 to 40 years after exposure, and are usually caused by multiple agents. Consequently, it’s very difficult to link human cancer to specific chemicals or consumer products.

And there’s another problem: In the United States, the manufacturers of consumer products are not required to disclose the results of toxicity tests to regulators or the public before selling their products.

In marked contrast, the European Union is adopting a “better safe than sorry” philosophy through regulations known as the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals. Manufacturers must demonstrate that their products are safe for people and the environment to introduce them and keep them on the market.

This standard provides a strong incentive for finding new alternatives to potentially dangerous brominated and chlorinated chemicals. An innovative Swedish company, for example, is developing a nontoxic fire retardant, Molecular Heat Eater, derived from oranges and lemons, that prevents fires in plastics and fabrics.

Home fires are a defined danger in the present. Chemical fire retardants pose a more ambiguous risk that can last for decades. We need to consider the larger picture before passing regulations that would put chemical fire retardants inside our pillows and those of our children, who are even more vulnerable to carcinogens. These regulations would lead to the widespread use of fire retardants that could be ultimately much more hazardous to us and our environment than the fires they’re intended to prevent.

Dr. Arlene Blum, the author of “Breaking Trail: A Climbing Life,” is a biophysical chemist and has taught at Stanford University, Wellesley College, and the University of California, Berkeley.

Posted on September 06, 2007

Comments

hi, i'm in a very big conflict with the U.S.military over using modacrylic fibers for fr underwear right now vs my wool underwear that is blended with an fr rayon from Lenzing in Austria. Lenzing claims toxic gases of acrylonitrile and anitomy oxide in modacrylic fibers cause cancer and I support it but the military wants more proof. Your story about furniture etc rings true, I was selling polyester sleepwear fibers and fabrics when it happened with Tris.
Two years later I developed polarfleece but never would go to the Army over the melting issues. Last year I stopped the Army Marines from using more polyester tee shirts and fleece over melting.
Now on the eve of my wool/ fr rayon development I'm getting creamed with modacrylic fibers and cheaper prices and a total denial of the toxic issues. Help please as all the troops in Iraq are about to begin wearing mod tee shirts and long johns.
i think the fr chemical in the rayon is something like silicia i know it is aluminumsomething that ios mixed 30% with the rayon so I think its an okay fr chem as Lenzing is saying.
Had lots of fun years in Berkeley when North Face and Sierra Designs were there in the 80's. Miss all that but it went overseas, now I'm down to my last chance with the US military and this wool vs modacrylic issue over fr performance.
thanks, doug
djhoschek@msn.com
425-392-0065

Posted by: doug hoschek at October 22, 2007 05:20 PM

Posted by: doug hoschek at October 22, 2007 05:22 PM

hi, i'm in a very big conflict with the U.S.military over using modacrylic fibers for fr underwear right now vs my wool underwear that is blended with an fr rayon from Lenzing in Austria. Lenzing claims toxic gases of acrylonitrile and anitomy oxide in modacrylic fibers cause cancer and I support it but the military wants more proof. Your story about furniture etc rings true, I was selling polyester sleepwear fibers and fabrics when it happened with Tris.
Two years later I developed polarfleece but never would go to the Army over the melting issues. Last year I stopped the Army Marines from using more polyester tee shirts and fleece over melting.
Now on the eve of my wool/ fr rayon development I'm getting creamed with modacrylic fibers and cheaper prices and a total denial of the toxic issues. Help please as all the troops in Iraq are about to begin wearing mod tee shirts and long johns.
i think the fr chemical in the rayon is something like silicia i know it is aluminumsomething that is mixed 30% with the rayon so I think its an okay fr chem as Lenzing is saying.
Had lots of fun years in Berkeley when North Face and Sierra Designs were there in the 80's. Miss all that but it went overseas, now I'm down to my last chance with the US military and this wool vs modacrylic issue over fr performance.
thanks, doug
djhoschek@msn.com
425-392-0665

Posted by: doug hoschek at October 22, 2007 05:24 PM

hi, i'm in a very big conflict with the U.S.military over using modacrylic fibers for fr underwear right now vs my wool underwear that is blended with an fr rayon from Lenzing in Austria. Lenzing claims toxic gases of acrylonitrile and anitomy oxide in modacrylic fibers cause cancer and I support it but the military wants more proof. Your story about furniture etc rings true, I was selling polyester sleepwear fibers and fabrics when it happened with Tris.
Two years later I developed polarfleece but never would go to the Army over the melting issues. Last year I stopped the Army Marines from using more polyester tee shirts and fleece over melting.
Now on the eve of my wool/ fr rayon development I'm getting creamed with modacrylic fibers and cheaper prices and a total denial of the toxic issues. Help please as all the troops in Iraq are about to begin wearing mod tee shirts and long johns.
i think the fr chemical in the rayon is something like silicia i know it is aluminumsomething that is mixed 30% with the rayon so I think its an okay fr chem as Lenzing is saying.
Had lots of fun years in Berkeley when North Face and Sierra Designs were there in the 80's. Miss all that but it went overseas, now I'm down to my last chance with the US military and this wool vs modacrylic issue over fr performance.
thanks, doug
djhoschek@msn.com
425-392-0665

Posted by: doug hoschek at October 22, 2007 05:26 PM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker