Debate Over Mandated Flame Retardant Chemicals In Furniture
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-09-20/debate-over-mandated-flame-retardant-chemicals-furniture
More than 80% of furniture sold in the United States contains flame retardants. Found in everything from couches to baby cribs, these chemicals are used to help improve fire safety. But in recent years, a growing number of critics say these chemicals are toxic and pose serious health risks to humans. Some leading scientists and health experts say new studies link flame retardants to neurological, developmental, and fertility problems. But manufacturers maintain their products meet fire prevention standards and save lives. Guest host Steve Roberts talks with guests about the use of flame retardants and human health.
Guests
Dr. Arlene Blum
executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute.
Dr. Linda Birnbaum
director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program.
Dr. Gilbert Ross
executive director and medical director of the American Council on Science and Health.
Dr. Marcelo Hirschler
consultant for GBH International.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
What's ridiculous is the amount of regulation here.
I, as a responsible, educated consumer, should be able to make my own decisions about flame retardants. I should be able to decide for myself how to balance the tradeoffs between chemical exposure vs fire risk.
I completely agree with the previous comment. I am an educated consumer. I want the choice. What right does the government have to allow these chemicals in my household products? I choose no flame retardants in my home.
I'm a mother of three small children and I work with a fire performance group. Every burner knows that you only burn in natural fibers; cotton, silk, leather, hemp, etc. These fiber have a naturally high flash point. The problem as I see it is that the synthetic material goes up in flames quickly so rather than fill everything we own with chemicals, why not just make these things out of natural fibers? It solves the problem of both parties with out exposure to chemical who's effect are as yet undetermined.
What a miserable panel of experts! I'm not used to hearing contributors talk over each other like this, so accusatory of each other and so unhelpful to the listener. Plenty of chemicals but not much light. I feel very sorry for Steve who is doing his best to keep them from coming to blows across the airwaves.
The arguments both seem reasonable, I have sold furniture for over 25yrs and know that WOOD products burn much hotter than foam and fabrics. Why no concern there? The EXPERTS remind of the old story of the 7 blind men describing the elephant, a wall, a fan, a tree...
I consider myself a responsible, educated consumer, especially on health matters, but I was totally unaware of the flame retardant controversy.
I suspect that the vast majority of Americans likewise are unaware of it.
In order to make an informed decision one must be informed.
As it seems like the experts (heatedly) disagree, the public should either be offered an INFORMED choice or the substances should be regulated.
I very much agree with you Tom. I finally shut off my radio. I don't feel as if I am getting anything out of it as both sides keep calling the other ridiculous and uninformed. I'll turn it back on for the second hour. I do think that Steve is doing a superb job of moderating, though. Poor guy. Who'd have thought a discussion about flame retardants would elicit such a heated discussion?
How can we find a local agency to help us find if their are toxins in the home or if furniture are causing problems. My daughter and her new husband got married and moved into a new house, new furniture, new mattress, new curtains and have had extreme health problems that are linked to their house. They have been living with us for 4 weeks now trying to find the source on their own. The State tested for formaldehyde but that's all - how can we get more testing?
Most of their problems are in the bedroom - eyes burning, chest tightens, headaches and nausea. They have moved the furniture in the garage and feel it is coming from that - is there a way to tell what toxins are coming from it?
The amount of disrespect and overtalking, particularly by the male experts, is simply rediculous. Either disconnect the lines, or find the mute button. I am not in favor of a one sided conversation, but if these gentleman can't respect the conventions of civil dialogue, then they have no place on your show. It is impossible to listen when you have guests that have no regard for the requests of the host.
I am a Mom of a 17 month old and am very worried about the potential "off gassing" of household items. I try to buy used items when ever possible. What is the amount of time these items need to be safe or are they ever safe? I am disturbed by the use of chemicals our society uses and wonder is a "potential" risk of fire death/injury for a few worth the exposure of "all" to these flame retardants?
Thank you for this informative show!
Is it not true that flame retardants really only provide a small amount of extra time before said sofa or furniture is engulfed in flames? I guess what I'm asking is are they really saving lives? And how do they measure that? Your guest is quoting studies about the amount of lives saved. How do you know they weren't saved by other factors i.e type of building, type of fire, time of firefighter to door, etc.
The man substituting for DR is failing miserably at leading a conversation between the different guests. It is completely offensive the way he is talking down to the professionals and I am appalled at his defensive, argumentative tone. I am not wiling to listen to the rest of this program today and I will hesitate to listen to an interview led by this man on the DR show again. Terrible, your guests and listeners deserve an apology for the unprofessional manor in which this discussion was had.
It's very unfortunate that Dr. Ross and Dr. Hirschler behaved like complete children during this show. I would have liked to have heard an intelligent argument from their side. This was certainly the most shockingly disappointed I've ever been in what is normally a brilliant broadcast.
Tom,
I have to agree. You would hope that somebody is able to offer a viable solution. Not heard one... The response to the lady's question regarding her husbands job working power lines was worthless. A non-descript statement stating that a safe chemical should be used in the clothing. So, what is that? Is there a suggestion?
I also agree that this is a miserable panel of "experts." This is very difficult to listen to. I'm not 100% sure I agree that Steve Roberts is doing the best job moderating. I've never heard a host have to raise his or her voice like this and repeatedly yell, "Just a minute!!" Again, very difficult to listen to this broadcast.
Curious that both sides of the debate claim there is overwhelming data to support their position. While this is true, since I've personally reviewed 30+ studies on both sides of the equation, most, if not all, qualify their studies with a statement saying there is not enough evidence to draw finite conclusions. What is prevalent in the majority of studies is the point made by Dr. Hersler that the levels of detection are far below what would be considered a human health concern. This is in fact supported by UNEPE, US EPA and Health Canada. If Dr. Blume and Dr. Bermbrau want to disregard this, hmmmm......
"When American corporations come up against inconvenient science, say, a study showing that mercury in fish can damage a developing fetus, or that a blockbuster drug has nasty side effects, they call in the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). Industry-funded ACSH is the most aggressive debunker of pesky research reports emanating from government and academia. Its medical/executive director's calm, soothing voice can be heard on television and radio, quelling public fears about the latest bad news about health and the environment."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/11/paging-dr-ross
We are adopting an infant and, in my shopping research, I came across the ground-breaking studies of Professor vam Saal, who lead the ban of PBAs in children's products. Kind of off topic, I know, but I wanted to share that we have decided to eschew all infant/toddler products that contain plastics, as well as fire retardants, due to studies that show the negative effects of endocrine disrupters on infant development, particularly baby boys. The only fully organic (plastics, including so-called "food or medical grade" plastics, are NOT organic) mattress we could find for our future little one was the Coco Mat which uses naturally flame-retardant wool to meet current guidelines. Babies spend about 70% of their time, sleeping in their cribs, breathing in the vapors that emanate from their mattresses, and we want to give our child a safe head start. Additionally, there is talk that the chemicals in some mattresses may be related to SIDS. HTHs someone.
I would love to know if there is any link to these flame retartdant chemicals and Autism/Spectrum conditions... Given the incrediable rise in AU cases over the last 20 years, I would love to know if there is a link and what we as consumers can do to limit our families exposures.
Dr. Ross represents an organization that appears to receive chemical industry funds. If the show wanted that perspective I wish they got someone who was more upfront about their inherent conflict of interest.
It's unfortunate that a potentially informative and helpful topic was so poorly debated. It is possible to disagree with others in a professional and respectful manner, which is regularly done on the show. I found it very tedious to listen to the interruptions and childish "blame games" from the panelists, especially Dr. Ross and Dr. Hirschler. Very difficult to glean information from discussions like this one.
I'd like to make another point supporting the caller who said, in effect, how dare you tell me to chill out.
How many people do you know who have had a house fire? Or had an almost house fire that was prevented by flame retardant soaked drapes, mattresses, furniture, who know what else?
For me the answer is 1. 1 in the last 30 years.
Now, how many people do you know who have some serious (new) health problem with no apparent cause? Diseases like autism, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, "juvenile-onset" diabetes contracted in middle age, lupus, etc (the list goes on and on) have been increasing greatly since I've been an adult, and nobody seems to know why.
I know - literally - dozens of these people, including myself.
Is it any surprise that people want to reduce their exposure to chemicals even if there's been no undisputed causal link?
I'd call this rational behavior.
That "chill out" guy reminds me of Dr. Strangelove.
I totally disagree!
No one of course can match Diane, but IMO Steve is doing a great job.
I think one or more of these guests were insufferable, self-important bloviators & he handled it well.
I can't imagine you were listening to the same show.
Steve Roberts is a refreshingly effective, thoughtful, engaging facilitator in Diane's tradition. I always enjoy his intelligent contribution, and his artful catalyzing and protective guidance of meaningful conversation. Thank you Steve and Diane for being fair and firm when necessary.
Four years ago I researched purchasing mattresses for my soon-to-be-born twins and found an organic mattress company on-line that used wool lining instead of any flame retardants. The company stated that I needed a presecription from my doctor in order to purchase their mattress in the U.S.A. Well, my doctor--the mother of two boys herself--refused to see why I required non-flame-retardant treated mattresses for my babies. My first thought was 'what country do I live in????' My long hours of research led me to a company started by a retired engineer who wanted something better for his grandchildren (Naturepedic) and to information about the chemical companies who lobby our leaders in Washington to keep these flame-retardants required in our consumer products. This issue is bigger than your kids' or your pets' health and well-being--it's really an issue about who has the money/political power in this land. Until this gets worked out, I fear not much is going to change. Even so, thanks to the show's host for trying to have a civil conversation.
Good point. As always - follow the money.
I was shocked at how rude that Birnbaum lady was......and disappointed I'm paying her through my taxes. She clearly has an ax to grind. She was constantly talking over people. I don't need that with my morning coffee.
I have listened to the show for years and have always found it to be insightful and informative. This show was neither. The panelists were a collection of the immature, discourteous and pompous. Earning a graduate degree or being a subject matter expert does not entitle someone to disregard commonly accepted rules of civil discourse. Good job in a bad situation Steve. Diane Rehm Show is still a standout.
This show jumped the shark today. While I appreciate Steve Roberts' attempt to control the dialogue it got out of control always and often.
This show jumped the shark today. While I appreciate Steve Roberts' attempt to control the dialogue it got out of control always and often.