If a substance used to increase public safety is found to be highly poisonous, a careful weighing of risks against benefits is in order.
If the same substance is found to worsen, not improve, safety, we should all ask why it continues to be used.
Public health and safety officials, biologists and even lawyers in sa国际传媒, the U.S. and Europe have been asking that question about a group of chemicals called flame retardants for a number of years. The 颅federal government recently announced additional steps to address the issue.
The 鈥渃omprehensive action plan to 颅protect firefighters from harmful 颅chemicals released during household fires鈥� 颅outlines steps to ban harmful chemical flame 颅retardants, support development and use of safe flame retardants, conduct more research and monitoring to assess levels of exposure, and so on. The initiative adds to the government鈥檚 existing Chemicals Management Plan, under which 12 chemical flame retardants have already been restricted or are being phased out.
Flame retardants are found in most home and office upholstered products. Beginning in the 1970s, the chemicals have been used in mattresses, bedding, fabrics, camping gear, vehicles, construction materials, and foam and rubber products. They鈥檙e common in children鈥檚 goods such as car seats, strollers, toys, pajamas and changing table pads. You can even find them in the plastic outer 颅casings and internal components of electronics and appliances.
The chemicals鈥� purpose is to keep items from catching fire and to limit the spread of fire.
Numerous studies have shown that 颅flame-retardant chemicals applied to 颅household items during manufacturing are not particularly effective at 颅preventing house fires or increasing fire safety. For example, a 2012 test by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission found that 颅鈥渇ire-retardant foams did not offer a 颅practically significantly greater level of open flame safety than did the untreated foams.鈥� The chemicals also have been found to not significantly improve protection against smouldering sources of ignition, such as cigarettes and radiant heaters.
Safer alternatives, such as cotton fillings and coverings made of different 颅materials and fabrics, have been demonstrated to be more effective at reducing how easily a product can ignite.
If that weren鈥檛 enough to make a person question their widespread use, chemical flame retardants are among the highly toxic 鈥渇orever chemicals鈥� that persist in the 颅environment and the body. As 颅documented in a report published last year by the 颅University of Victoria鈥檚 Environmental Law Centre, a significant body of research shows the chemicals contribute to cancers, and cause hormone, metabolic, reproductive and immune disorders, and even lower IQ in children whose mothers were exposed to the chemicals during pregnancy.
We come into direct contact with the chemicals in the products themselves 颅鈥� 颅particularly bedding, furniture and similar items. When products that contain flame retardants age and start breaking down, the chemicals enter the air and dust around us. Pregnant women and their unborn children are at most risk, as are infants, toddlers, pets and any other family member who spends a lot of time at floor level, where dust collects.
When treated fabric is washed, the 颅chemicals enter the sewage system. A 2018 study of eight wastewater treatment plants across sa国际传媒 showed that wastewater 颅treatment can remove varying amounts of the chemicals from the water stream 鈥� depending on the specific chemical, the time of year and other variables. In 颅addition, the chemicals leach from, for example, discarded furniture along the roadside 鈥� a frequent phenomenon in this region 鈥� into creeks, rivers, lakes and the ocean via stormwater.
But the real irony about flame retardants is they increase the danger of garden-variety house fires.
鈥淔ires today burn hotter and faster than ever before, aided by the chemical soup of toxins contained within our homes and 颅businesses,鈥� says sa国际传媒 颅Professional Fire Fighters鈥� Association president Gord 颅Ditchburn. 鈥淐hemical flame retardants designed to keep us safe can actually 颅contribute negatively once the product 颅combusts.鈥�
When flame retardant-treated 颅materials burn, a fire鈥檚 smoke becomes blacker, thicker and up to 10 times more toxic than the smoke from untreated products.
As a result, firefighters typically have higher levels of the chemicals in their bodies than other people do. Their rates of cancer and cardiovascular and endocrine disease are often correspondingly higher, too.
Using chemical flame retardants in 颅furniture and most household items provides little benefit to firefighters or to families trying to escape a burning home.
As a society, we鈥檙e shouldering all of the risk for very little gain. And the firefighters among us are taking the brunt of it.
