The Snow Crash Conundrum

November 26th, 2007

In the seminal cyberpunk novel Snow Crash, samurai pizza delivery man Hiro sums up the problem with children’s pyjamas: “You can have ‘em flame-retardant or non-carcinogenic, but not both.”. An article by Arlene Blum, published in Science recently, shows this is an issue that persists to this day.

Blum details how we’re still in a state of uncertainty when it comes to fire-proofing our homes, and points out the muddled policy choices that have been made subsequently. Although chlorinated tris was removed from children’s sleepwear in the 70s after it was found to be a mutagen (and probable carcinogen), it is now the second most used fire retardant in furniture. How did this happen?

In the 80s, pentabromodiphenyl ether (pentaBDE) was added to polyurethane foam to meet California’s Technical Bulletin 117. This had the unfortunate property of dissociating from the foam and migrating into household dust, eventually accumulating inside the occupants of the house. Showing a potential to be harmful, pentaBDE was banned in California in 2003, and the EU followed suit.

Manufacturers went back to using chlorinated tris and “unknown proprietary mixtures”, which may turn out to be no better than pentaBDE. Whether these chemicals are safe or not isn’t yet known – Blum states that all have “large data gaps for human health and environmental safety”.

Still, these are life-saving flame retardants, right? The benefits must outweight the costs. Well, no, argues Blum.

From 1980 to 1999, states that did not regulate furniture flammability experienced declines in fire deaths similar to that seen in California.

The unappreciated factors in reducing fire deaths include a 50% decrease in per capita cigarette consumption since 1980 and increasing improvements in building, fire and electrical regulations. New laws in Europe will require manufacturers to establish the environmental and human safety of all new ans existing chemicals – a move that could spell the end for toxic flame retardants. Rather than repeatedly replacing one hazardous chemical with another, Blum points to reducing incidence of fire (for example, implementing requirements for fire-safe cigarettes and increasing the use of sprinklers and smoke detectors), summarizing: “Fire-retardant chemicals in our homes should not pose a greater hazard to our health and environment than the risk of fires they are supposed to prevent”.

I expect the chemical-phobic groups to leap on Blum’s piece with glee, but I’m more interested in it as an example of problem solving within society.  For example, now that smoking in public is banned in the UK, will the probable increase in smoking at home lead to a jump in the incidences of fire?  And if so, would we be right to keep a hold of our pentaBDE until more conclusive data could be published on it?

Entry Filed under: General

Permalink  |    |    |    |    |