Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 159 posts

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#131

Post by leviathant »

nostromo wrote: post #31

Looking at mattresses without flame-retardent led me to this provider: http://www.whitelotus.net/green-cotton-rx/ Turns out you'll need a doctor's prescription to even order a plain cotton mattress. Yet another perfectly reasonable regulation from our friends in the California Legislature! :) My least-favorite CA regulation has to do with eye-glasses. I lost my only pair and went in to get a replacement on a Saturday…

If you know what your prescription is, you could order online from a place like Zenni Optical (where my wife gets her glasses). I'm not sure about PA, but here in PA, it's illegal for an optometrist to withold information about your prescription. She got her eyes checked, had to push a little to get her prescription, and then bought her glasses online.

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#132

Post by Alex3917 »

michael_h wrote: post #121
Alex3917 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems correct anecdotally. At some point they figured out that smoking is somewhat less bad for you if you smoke outside, so maybe this had some effect.

At some point they figured out that smoking is somewhat less bad for you if you smoke outside Smoking is in no way less bad for you if done out of doors. It's because no one, not even a smoker, wants their domicile to smell like an ash tray...and when selling a house, you don't want to cut out that large swath of the population that doesn't smoke from your buyer pool.

"Smoking is in no way less bad for you if done out of doors."

That's not true. If you live in the house of someone who was formerly a heavy smoker then you have a higher cancer risk yourself, because the radiation from the cigarrettes gets into the walls and carpet. Which means that smokers themselves also have a lower cancer risk if they smoke outside for the same reason. I'd imagine it also somewhat reduces their risk for heart attack, since second hand smoke increases your risk of heart attack, although I haven't seen any stats on that.

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#133

Post by clstrfckr »

Alex3917 wrote: post #104
usefulcat wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, it seems that smokers (at least in the US) are much more likely to go outside to smoke now, even when at their own home. Sorry, no data just personal recollections from childhood in the '80s.

This seems correct anecdotally. At some point they figured out that smoking is somewhat less bad for you if you smoke outside, so maybe this had some effect.

Everyone commenting on this thread seems to make the assumption that all smokers in fact smoke cigarettes inside their residence. As a 26 year-old semi-heavy smoker, I've never once even considered smoking inside my apartment, nor do I know any smokers who do so. This may be dismissed as anecdotal by the type of vehement anti-smoking zealot you seem to be,But I believe it's an accurate depiction of smokers at large.

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#134

Post by jbellis »

vm wrote: post #113
tptacek wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we know that anyone has contracted cancer as a result of flame retardants used in furniture? I re-read the article looking for clear evidence, and what I saw on close read was weasel-wording: when direct health effects are being talked about, the subject of the sentence becomes "flame retardants" rather than a specific chemical; when lax investigations become a topic, it's the EPA's laxity (the EPA isn't solely re…

Do we know that any lives have been saved as a result of flame retardants being used in furniture? The article suggests that flame retardants do not slow down furniture fires in real world scenarios. The problem is that they are used in only the foam padding. The couch fabric is not treated. The foam itself appears to offer little resistance to fire if it is already covered in flames (like if fabric is on fire). This…

something has been very effective at reducing deaths by fire: http://www.chicagonewscoop.org/chicago/wp-content/uploads/20...

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#135

Post by rms »

jbellis wrote: post #134
vm wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we know that any lives have been saved as a result of flame retardants being used in furniture? The article suggests that flame retardants do not slow down furniture fires in real world scenarios. The problem is that they are used in only the foam padding. The couch fabric is not treated. The foam itself appears to offer little resistance to fire if it is already covered in flames (like if fabric is on fire). This…

something has been very effective at reducing deaths by fire: http://www.chicagonewscoop.org/chicago/wp-content/uploads/20...

Decrease in cigarette smoking over time?

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#136

Post by pavel_lishin »

clstrfckr wrote: post #133
Alex3917 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems correct anecdotally. At some point they figured out that smoking is somewhat less bad for you if you smoke outside, so maybe this had some effect.

Everyone commenting on this thread seems to make the assumption that all smokers in fact smoke cigarettes inside their residence. As a 26 year-old semi-heavy smoker, I've never once even considered smoking inside my apartment, nor do I know any smokers who do so. This may be dismissed as anecdotal by the type of vehement anti-smoking zealot you seem to be,But I believe it's an accurate depiction of smokers at large.

> nor do I know any smokers who do so.

I've known several.

> This may be dismissed as anecdotal by the type of vehement anti-smoking zealot you seem to be

I guess your anecdotal evidence trumps my anecdotal evidence. Carry on.

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#137

Post by pavel_lishin »

leviathant wrote: post #131
nostromo wrote: post #31

Looking at mattresses without flame-retardent led me to this provider: http://www.whitelotus.net/green-cotton-rx/ Turns out you'll need a doctor's prescription to even order a plain cotton mattress. Yet another perfectly reasonable regulation from our friends in the California Legislature! :) My least-favorite CA regulation has to do with eye-glasses. I lost my only pair and went in to get a replacement on a Saturday…

If you know what your prescription is, you could order online from a place like Zenni Optical (where my wife gets her glasses). I'm not sure about PA, but here in PA, it's illegal for an optometrist to withold information about your prescription. She got her eyes checked, had to push a little to get her prescription, and then bought her glasses online.

Exact same experience in Texas; had to ask optometrist to specifically mark down all required information (pupillary distance was missing) and then went to Zenni to get my glasses.

(Oh my god, we sound like a couple of shills.)

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#138

Post by sukuriant »

lhnn wrote: post #52
nostromo wrote: post #31

Looking at mattresses without flame-retardent led me to this provider: http://www.whitelotus.net/green-cotton-rx/ Turns out you'll need a doctor's prescription to even order a plain cotton mattress. Yet another perfectly reasonable regulation from our friends in the California Legislature! :) My least-favorite CA regulation has to do with eye-glasses. I lost my only pair and went in to get a replacement on a Saturday…

I loathe the requirement of a current prescription for glasses. Corrupt bureaucracy at its usual tricks. What I wonder: Is it illegal to make a bed out of flame-retardant free cotton balls?

Are self-created fire hazards in your home illegal? Because that's PROBABLY what it would be considered.

IANAL

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#139

Post by 001sky »

rdl wrote: post #115
tptacek wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OSHA and EPA have overlapping missions on chemical toxicity, don't they?

Well, EPA is really more "systemic" risk of chemicals, I think. It regulates chemicals at point of production and use mainly to prevent systemic environmental issues later on. I was mostly wondering who regulates this stuff for point of consumption by consumers -- OSHA is pretty clearly focused on production or use in business, not in the home, and CPSC isn't really so "sciencey" as OSHA or EPA -- it's more concerned…

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07825.pdf

More info here. TL;DR: Gov't still trying to figure it out.

GAO was asked to review the approaches used under TSCA and REACH for (1) requiring chemical companies to develop information on chemicals’ effects, (2) controlling risks from chemicals, and (3) making information on chemicals available to the public. To review these issues, GAO analyzed applicable U.S. and EU laws and regulations and interviewed U.S. and EU officials, industry representatives, and environmental advocacy organizations. GAO is making no recommendations.

Re: How Dangerous Is Your Couch?

#140

Post by tsotha »

sp332 wrote: post #96
tsotha wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't count if you die in a fire, either. The reality is with this kind of thing we're really off into rounding errors. To the extent you can affect your odds of getting cancer, the extent to which you do the things your mother told you to do (don't smoke, don't drink, eat your vegetables, and don't get too fat) swamps your cancer risk from environmental sources.

Just don't eat broccoli. Broccoli contains mutagens. http://www.biomedsearch.com/nih/Genotoxicity-studies-organic...

Well, you can't compare broccoli to nothing. Broccoli is probably a big improvement over the food most people eat, mutagenic properties notwithstanding.
Post reply on HN