Firefighters Back Ban on Flame Retardants

Your TV, mattress, couch and computer could be sources of man-made toxic chemicals building up in human tissues, including breast milk. Sounds crazy, but it’s not.
Many consumer products are imbued with a class of flame retardants considered by many to be bad news since they accumulate in fatty tissues, resist breakdown in the environment, and disrupt normal development in lab animals. They’re called polybrominated diphenyl ethers or just “brominated flame retardants” for short (BFRs).
Introduced in the 1970’s, BFRs have been cropping up in more and more consumer goods because synthetic materials, like petroleum-
based plastics, are generally more flammable. BFRs impede the spread of fire by creating a layer of bromine gas onto the surface of a heated product, keeping oxygen at bay. They can make up 5-30% of a product’s weight. Over time, they dissociate from upholstery foam, textiles and electronic equipment, making their way into air, dust, and soil.
As example, dust samples swiped from atop computers in domestic, school and business settings universally tested positive for BFRs in a 2004 study conducted by the Computer Take-Back Campaign. BFRs are so ubiquitous that they are now found in remote areas of the Artic and throughout the food chain, from zooplankton to dolphins
and polar bears.

Toxicity of BFRs
Animal studies have revealed that early exposure to BFRs derails normal
brain development, is toxic to the liver and disrupts sex and thyroid hormones. Experiments from Uppsala University in Sweden, for example, demonstrated permanent impairments of learning and memory in animals given a single dose soon after birth. Research on effects on human development is lacking, however, since intentional exposure of vulnerable populations to potentially dangerous substances is unethical. However, the revelation that BFRs had increased 60-fold in the breast milk of Swedish women between 1972 and 1997 ignited a global shake up in the use of BFRs, starting with the 2004 ban in the European Union of the two formulations regarded as most toxic: so-called penta & octa.
Levels of BFRs in N. American women are the highest anywhere and continue to double about every 5 yrs. Although U.S. production of penta & octa was halted in 2004 under voluntary agreement with the U.S. manufacturer (U.S. federal government
has yet to ban any BFRs), the supposedly less toxic deca formulation
continues to dominate the market at home and abroad: annual worldwide production has reached 60,000 metric tons with 40% of consumption in N. America.
Yet, controversy looms as to just how safe deca is. It’s listed as a “possible carcinogen” by the U.S. EPA based on liver tumors produced
in lab animals. The chemical industry insists that deca is minimally toxic so that current exposure levels are acceptable. But many scientists and environmental groups argue that no level of exposure is safe because of the daily pattern of modern day exposure plus the build up over time in fatty tissues. Furthermore, recent data indicate that deca can be broken down by sunlight, bacteria or even within wildlife into more toxic forms, including penta and octa, so it might prove equally dangerous in the long run.
Concern about BFRs as a class of chemicals is fomented also by its structural similarity to PBCs (polychlorinated biphenyls), a family of now-banned substances linked to a host of developmental problems.

CA considers deca ban
While 10 states, including CA, have formally enacted bans on penta and octa, only Maine and Washington have successfully legislated deca prohibitions. CA is currently considering a bill that would eliminate deca from furniture and bedding, along with chlorinated flame retardants
that have been linked to similar health concerns (AB706, Leno). This bill would effectively force an industry move toward “green chemistry,” i.e. inherently less flammable materials as well as flame retardants whose health and environmental
safety would have to be proven beforehand.
Ban proponents contend that eliminating deca will not turn your household into kindling, as some might suggest. Other states, for example, lack CA’s tough furniture flammability regulations yet have enjoyed sizable drops in fire death rates in recent decades similar to CA, according to a 2006 report from the National Fire Protection Association. Rather, fire death rates vary with factors like smoking and poverty.
Firefighting communities, including the International Association of Firefighters, have recently come out in favor of state prohibitions on deca, in part because of the risks to themselves. When BFRs combust, they produce dense fumes and black smoke that reduce visibility as well as corrosive hydrogen bromide gas and brominated forms of potent carcinogens (dioxins and furans).
Both the Calif. State Firefighters’ Assoc. & Calif. Professional Fire Fighters, that represent the state’s frontline firefighters, are supporting AB706, as are the Firefighters Burn Institute and the Firefighter Cancer Support Network. That firefighters are at two to six-fold greater risk for cancers has helped rally their support for eliminating deca, says Carroll Wills, Communications Director for Calif. Professional Fire Fighters. In fact, AB706 is named after a firefighter, Crystal Golden-Jefferson, who died from workplace-related non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Makers of BFRs remain the most vocal opponents to restricting deca. In fact, top electronics makers (e.g. Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Sony. Panasonic) have already moved away from deca by embracing innovative designs and materials that often eliminate the need for fire retardants.
Our homes should be havens of respite from job stress and the like, not a source of worry about what might be silently emanating from furniture, bedding & electronics and poisoning dust & breast milk. A sustainable and precautionary approach to fire protection is sorely needed at state and federal levels, lest we expose children and firefighters alike to harmful chemicals that pose a greater hazard than the fires they intend to prevent.