[JoshGG]

What amount of fire retardants would you like in your food? How about zero? I would like zero.

These have already been banned in CA from furniture because it creates household exposure. Why would it be ok in cooking utensils?

BTW the chemicals don’t actually prevent house fires it’s basically an industry scam to put them into products.

[infecto]

Your information is incorrect.

Flame retardants were introduced into everything because of CA and Federal laws requiring items to smolder and not catch fire. While I don't believe flame retardants should be as prevalent as they are today, I also think its unfair to say they don't prevent house fires. They absolutely have done some saving but I don't think across the entire population its a net positive. These rules were originally put into place because of a number of high profile cases where kids died, the biggest vector were beds, people smoked and dropped the butt on their mattress and poof.

That rule in CA is in the right direction, glad they are helping right some of the wrong they did but it is still in everything. I think its more helpful to paint the accurate historical picture as opposed to yours which is using hyperbole to generate a reaction.

[JoshGG]

“”” Flame retardants were widely adopted in the 1970s, when in-home smoking was more prevalent and electronics frequently overheated. New research, however, shows that flame retardants are not very effective at slowing or preventing fires. “””

https://www.sfenvironment.org/how-can-i-avoid-flame-retardan...

[infecto]

Is that supposed to prove something? That site is all fluff.

I am not here defending flame retardants, I absolutely believe they don't provide a net positive to the population. Your lack of information and hyperbole is what I am after. These were not "scams". Your SF website does a good job of leaving out California’s TB117 which is one of the pivotal laws that created widespread adoption of retardants in items. There were also some prior Federal laws but TB117 is seen as one of pivotal ones.

Now, I don't know the history behind the chemical manufacturers and if they were behind the fear mongering but there absolutely were tragic cases that moved the nation to implement these laws. It was not just a "scam" that gets added to everything.

[zug_zug]

I think they could be called a scam. Having flame retardent in our bedding by law, all so smokers could smoke in bed safely, feels like some sort of regulatory capture to me.

They should make flame-retardent bedware and non-flame-retwrdent bedware, and should be legally obligated to disclose every flame-retarded chemical and daily expected daily exposure levels on the tags and box.

[infecto]

Well things have gotten better in the past 20yrs but there is a long way to go. Childrens sleepware is the notable item that still contains retardants and at least there is mandatory tagging for when its present.

when I have done readings before I honestly could not find note of regulatory capture but sometimes these things get muddied with history. Saying its a scam is just hyperbole. Most of the laws on the book are tied in time to some fairly large (100+ person) fire death events. There is a reason those laws were created and we were still in a period of time where chemicals could solve all problems.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Flame retardant bedware is called "the bedware your great grandparents had".

Problem is, in capitalism's endless march towards ... well, who knows what, precisely ... companies began to make bedware out of synthetic fabric because it was (a) cheaper to make (b) allowing lower retail prices and potentially (c) higher profit margins. There's also some sense in which synthetic fabrics can be longer lived than non-synthetics.

Once this stuff was out in people's lives, we realized that there was (at least) one downside: these fabrics also ignite much more easily than non-synthetics, and when they do, they generate flame which spreads a fire even more rapidly.

One option would have been to just ban any fabrics that ignite more easily than (say) cotton. That would have been cast by some as a move against the interests of lower income people (not necessarily incorrectly).

Another option would have been to just leave things alone, and let the people who choose to buy synthetic bedware sans flame retardants deal with the consequences themselves. Alas, that's not actually how our society works. When your neighbor's house goes up in flames because of their bedding choices, you still want your fire department to show up and get things under control, lest you lose your home too.

So .. we set standards for how much and what types of flame retardants were acceptable (standards that are subject to and have been changed over time), and let people continue to buy synthetic bedware (and furniture and clothes and ....) all of which contribute to the fuel load should a fire break out.

I am a firefighter (II), and the increase in the speed with which homes can now be fully engulfed because of the decline in the low of low-flammable materials and the rise of synthetics is utterly terrifying.

[IshKebab]

Zero is an impractical goal. I would like zero cars on the road. Zero litter. Zero CO2 emission. Zero idiots on the internet.

Sadly we both live in the real world. "A small fraction of the recommended limit" is perfectly acceptable.

[ternnoburn]

Is 8% a small fraction? I don't think it is... sure it's not 80%, but it's definitely not 0.08% either.

[godshatter]

I am unlikely to use a black plastic spatula more than 12.5 times more often, daily, for enough days in a row for this to really be a risk I need to worry about. Having said that, the next time I need to buy a spatula I'll probably buy one made of something else.

[exabrial]

> it’s basically an industry scam to put them into products.

This assertion cannot possibly be correct, regardless of the study