How Dangerous Is Your Couch? • Hacker News Board

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#21

Post by walkon » Sat, Sep 08, 2012, 7:27 PM UTC

lignuist wrote: post #14

afterburner wrote: post #7

Memory-foam mattresses have the same problem apparently. I have one, and am looking into a dust mite bed casing (~$100) to prevent the chemicals from getting into the air... http://lesstoxicstuff.com/2011/09/how-to-reduce-your-familys...

We spend a lot of time in our beds (at least we should), so we should take everything about it very serious! We recently switched to a bed that strictly consists of natural materials like wood, latex, cotton and natural rubber. Absolutely no metal and no toxic additives. Costs as much as our car, but is worth every cent. Sleeping feels like holiday now. I also can smell the difference.

Do you have a link to info on such beds?

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#22

Post by srl » Sat, Sep 08, 2012, 7:32 PM UTC

001sky wrote: post #5

Of the 84,000 industrial chemicals registered for use in the United States, only about 200 have been evaluated for human safety by the Environmental Protection Agency --Wait, what? What is the EPA doing, then for 42 years? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Pro...

The next sentence:

That’s because industrial chemicals are presumed safe unless proved otherwise, under the 1976 federal Toxic Substances Control Act.

In other words, the EPA isn't _allowed_ to investigate products unless evidence that they are unsafe is brought before it. Makers get the benefit of the doubt.

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#23

Post by lignuist » Sat, Sep 08, 2012, 7:33 PM UTC

walkon wrote: post #21

lignuist wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We spend a lot of time in our beds (at least we should), so we should take everything about it very serious! We recently switched to a bed that strictly consists of natural materials like wood, latex, cotton and natural rubber. Absolutely no metal and no toxic additives. Costs as much as our car, but is worth every cent. Sleeping feels like holiday now. I also can smell the difference.

Do you have a link to info on such beds?

It is called "Relax" and is manufactured by an austrian company.

http://www.relax-bettsysteme.at/en

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#24

Post by agwa » Sat, Sep 08, 2012, 7:35 PM UTC

NoPiece wrote: post #16

I feel like the article is missing a basic analysis of whether there would be more deaths by an increased number of fires caused by removing the fire retardant, or by cancer cancer caused by fire retardant. Just give me some numbers, and let me decide what kind of furniture I want.

> let me decide what kind of furniture I want

The problem is that the government has decided that you shouldn't be able to make that decision for yourself - laws require that couches be sold with retardants. Arlene Blum managed to commission a custom-built couch without fire retardants, but that's neither scalable nor viable for most people.

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#25

Post by wissler » Sat, Sep 08, 2012, 7:37 PM UTC

001sky wrote: post #5

Of the 84,000 industrial chemicals registered for use in the United States, only about 200 have been evaluated for human safety by the Environmental Protection Agency --Wait, what? What is the EPA doing, then for 42 years? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Pro...

Security theatre.

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#26

Post by anonymouz » Sat, Sep 08, 2012, 7:43 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #19

NoPiece wrote: post #16

I feel like the article is missing a basic analysis of whether there would be more deaths by an increased number of fires caused by removing the fire retardant, or by cancer cancer caused by fire retardant. Just give me some numbers, and let me decide what kind of furniture I want.

How does a couch catch fire, though? I suspect falling asleep on a couch with a cigarette is the main cause. Smokers want to die anyway, so I'd give priority to safety of children.

But what about the people living next door to your hypothetical smoker? It's a good idea to have fire safety regulations, for the reason that a fire usually will not just burn the person who caused it in the first place. (Whether this fire retardent helps prevent fires or not is of course a more difficult question...)

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#27

Post by Tichy » Sat, Sep 08, 2012, 7:48 PM UTC

anonymouz wrote: post #26

Tichy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does a couch catch fire, though? I suspect falling asleep on a couch with a cigarette is the main cause. Smokers want to die anyway, so I'd give priority to safety of children.

But what about the people living next door to your hypothetical smoker? It's a good idea to have fire safety regulations, for the reason that a fire usually will not just burn the person who caused it in the first place. (Whether this fire retardent helps prevent fires or not is of course a more difficult question...)

You have a point, we are back to needing more data. Living next door to a smoker, we have at least installed a smoke detector. But I suspect if it goes off it would already be too late.

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#28

Post by philwelch » Sat, Sep 08, 2012, 7:49 PM UTC

huhtenberg wrote: post #17

Reminds me of the situation around one of theories that tries to explain SIDS - Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. If you had a kid, you know what it is - a newborn dying in his sleep for no apparent reason. You put a healthy baby to sleep in his bed only to find him dead in the morning. Fun stuff. There are no exact explanation for the syndrome, but there are preventive measures (such as always let newborn fall asleep on…

SIDS is another word for "looks like asphyxiation but we can't figure out how". There's no single cause. Babies sleeping on their tummies was one, since they just breathe back in their CO2. Other proposed causes include fungus, as you mentioned, and even infanticide.

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#29

Post by droithomme » Sat, Sep 08, 2012, 7:55 PM UTC

greenyoda wrote: post #18

The irony of the whole thing is that the flame retardants don't even make furniture any less flammable: "The problem, [the fire expert] argues, is that the standard is based on applying a small flame to a bare piece of foam - a situation unlikely to happen in real life. ... In real life, before the flame gets to the foam, it has to ignite the fabric. Once the fabric catches fire, it becomes a sheet of flame that can…

Thanks for digging that up, I was wondering about that.

The article cites a retardant advocate as saying "Deaths caused by furniture fires dropped from 1,400 in 1980 to 600 in 2004; a 57 percent reduction."

We know that almost all of these couch fires are caused by people falling asleep while smoking cigarettes.

According to the CDC, in the same period, cigarette consumption in the US adult population has fallen from 33.2% in 1980 to 20.9% in 2004. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762370.html)

So a certain portion of the decline is due to the reduction in cigarette use.

Also, 43 out of 50 states now mandate "fire safe" cigarettes which contain substances such as ethylene vinyl acetate which increase the chance an unsmoked but lit cigarette will stop burning. The presence of these cigarettes has also certainly led to fewer couch fires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_safe_cigarette

It is unlikely that the entire 57 percent reduction in couch fires over 24 years is entirely due to the use of carcinogenic flame retardants.

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#30

Post by 001sky » Sat, Sep 08, 2012, 7:56 PM UTC

srl wrote: post #22

001sky wrote: post #5

Of the 84,000 industrial chemicals registered for use in the United States, only about 200 have been evaluated for human safety by the Environmental Protection Agency --Wait, what? What is the EPA doing, then for 42 years? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Pro...

The next sentence: That’s because industrial chemicals are presumed safe unless proved otherwise, under the 1976 federal Toxic Substances Control Act. In other words, the EPA isn't _allowed_ to investigate products unless evidence that they are unsafe is brought before it. Makers get the benefit of the doubt.

Because, you see, nobody cares. When things go wrong in your company, nobody cares. The press doesn’t care, your investors don’t care, your board doesn’t care, your employees don’t care, even your mama doesn’t care. Nobody cares.
And they are right not to care. A great reason for failing won’t preserve one dollar for your investors, won’t save one employee’s job, or get you one new customer. It especially won’t make you feel one bit better when you shut down your company and declare bankruptcy.

All the mental energy that you use to elaborate your misery would be far better used trying to find the one, seemingly impossible way out of your current mess. It’s best to spend zero time on what you could have done and all of your time on what you might do. Because in the end, nobody cares, just run your company.[1]

[1] http://bhorowitz.com/2011/10/08/nobody-cares/