141–150 of 159 posts
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume flame retardants are mainly only needed for couches of smokers (I've never randomly put a flame onto my couch for fun to see if it would burn), so even if fire retardants save 100 people from fires they caused through voluntary negligence while subjecting 1 additional person to cancer or other illness due to chemicals, I'm not sure if it's a fair trade. Saving firefighters might be a reasonable argument, tho…
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…
2. "Flame retardant" vs. "specific chemical": the article specifically cited recent research regarding PBDEs, why did you not consider this valid evidence?
"Researchers from the Center for Children’s Environmental Health, at Columbia University, measured a class of flame retardants known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, in the umbilical-cord blood of 210 New York women and then followed their children’s neurological development over time. They found that those with the highest levels of prenatal exposure to flame retardants scored an average of five points lower on I.Q. tests than the children with lower exposures, an impact similar to the effect of lead exposure in early life."
Furthermore, the article made it clear that the ingredients of some flame retardants, such as Chemtura’s Firemaster 550 (apparently one of the most common flame retardants), are trade secrets. The study in (2) makes it clear it can take years to demonstrate an effect. So Chemtura can't even know if their product is safe but they're quite happy to sell it to you! Surely the logical conclusion is: beware.
3. Risk vs. Benefit.
Unfortunately, and this is the crux of the problem, it seems that unless one can afford to commission a couch and pay for laboratory analysis of the foam supplier's product, avoiding these substances is very difficult given the present legal situation. And that definitely seems a point worth fighting given the potential harm identified. If you want to risk poisoning your children for little apparent benefit, that's your choice, but it's unethical to make that choice for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> emit highly toxic mercury Do you have a source for energy efficient CFLs "emitting mercury"?
They certainly emit mercury when they're broken, and the instructions for cleaning up broken CFLs call for several hours of ventilation, which implies that the mercury vapor escapes into the atmosphere. (See, for example, the cleanup instructions at the bottom of this page: http://www.epa.state.il.us/mercury/compact-fluorescent.html ) I'd guess that a large percentage of people who buy CFLs are totally unaware of how…
Also consider that in today's litigious world, no one wants to say "don't worry if you break a bulb, there's not really enough mercury to be dangerous in one" lest someone starts breaking bulbs with wild abandon and then suing the authority that told them they 'weren't dangerous'.
There's some interesting discussion on this topic here: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/297/how-dangerou...
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…
Unfortunately sometimes smart people believe dumb things, and Dr. Sprott is one of these people. When you read the reasons why his "research" has been ignored you hear things like "vested interest", "cover up", and "politics". Dr. T.J Sprott has a book, and several products for sale. His "statistic" is bogus; the NZ authorities stopped recommending mattress wrapping in the 90s; he has no idea if babies slept or died…
Even assuming he is a complete loon, the theory of an environmental cause is actually quite plausible. Perhaps not fungus, not phosphorus, but something in the bedding that just knocks those kids out.
With regards him being evil - I don't really see it that way. Why do you say that parents stop following established best practices once they wrap their kid's mattress? Parents aren't idiots, are they? What he's advocating for is orthogonal to existing prevention measures, both easily combined.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the thing that is reflexively offensive about this whole thing is that the government has taken a risk that is reasonably easy for a responsible adult to avoid (setting their couch on fire) and implemented a measure that is harmful and difficult or almost impossible to avoid. It's as if we are all made to pay for the morons who can't resist playing with matches in their couch.
It is not particularly easy to avoid setting your couch on fire. The problem with flaming couches is not just those cases where the couch is the primary contributor to the fire; it's also the cases where couches rapidly accelerate the intensity of a smaller fire, like from an electrical malfunction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately sometimes smart people believe dumb things, and Dr. Sprott is one of these people. When you read the reasons why his "research" has been ignored you hear things like "vested interest", "cover up", and "politics". Dr. T.J Sprott has a book, and several products for sale. His "statistic" is bogus; the NZ authorities stopped recommending mattress wrapping in the 90s; he has no idea if babies slept or died…
Well, from what I've read the book and the products came substantially after he started voicing his concerns, which sort of implies that he might've taken the matter in his own hands since no one would listen to him. Even assuming he is a complete loon, the theory of an environmental cause is actually quite plausible. Perhaps not fungus, not phosphorus, but something in the bedding that just knocks those kids out. Wi…
The very many parents who believed Wakefield[1] and didn't immunise their children prove you wrong. Some parents are scared, and want to do the best, and cannot assess risk, and cannot understand scientific research, and thus are vulnerable to woo.
See also "wifi is dangerous"; "cellphones are dangerous" etc etc.
> the theory of an environmental cause is actually quite plausible.
I have no problem with someone saying "Cot death could be caused by environmental factors. Let's do lots of good quality research to see if we can discover that cause."
Sprott did not do that. Sprott said 'I have found the cause. This is the cause. There is no room for doubt. By not following my advice you are killing babies. By arguing against my advice you are covering up mistakes that you've made, or you are corrupt'.
Sprott says that no babies have died on wrapped mattresses. This is false. Babies have died on wrapped mattresses.
Sprott claims that toxic gases are produced by fungus and the fire-retardant chemicals. This is false - it's not possible to generate those toxic gases unless you do weird things in a lab. (ie, it doesn't happen in the home when the mattress is used normally.)
So what he has done is diverted attention from correct information; made it harder for parents to remember and follow correct information; caused fear and uncertainty among scared people. He has ignored the very clear recommendations against his advice. And finally he's making money off this FUD; he's using the conspiracy theory as a marketing gimmick.
[1] A really nice overview here: (http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hack: use horse hair, down, and feathers for furniture stuffing. More comfy. Longer lasting. Won't spontaneously cumbust! =D Environmentally friendly, too That's so 1930's. _______________ [Used today for this very reason!]
Kind of tangentially, down is one of the few products where the "humane" way to harvest involves killing the animal; the "pluck living geese over and over again" method is apparently quite painful for them.
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…
1. Cancer: does it matter whether it's cancer or something else? Surely the criteria here is "harm" not "cancer". 2. "Flame retardant" vs. "specific chemical": the article specifically cited recent research regarding PBDEs, why did you not consider this valid evidence? "Researchers from the Center for Children’s Environmental Health, at Columbia University, measured a class of flame retardants known as polybrominated…
PBDE's haven't been used for years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They certainly emit mercury when they're broken, and the instructions for cleaning up broken CFLs call for several hours of ventilation, which implies that the mercury vapor escapes into the atmosphere. (See, for example, the cleanup instructions at the bottom of this page: http://www.epa.state.il.us/mercury/compact-fluorescent.html ) I'd guess that a large percentage of people who buy CFLs are totally unaware of how…
On the other hand though, CFLs, with a current energy production mix of sources, cause, even if broken, less mercury to be emitted into the atmosphere than the extra power required to light an equivalent incandescent would cause to be emitted during generation (coal is mostly to blame for this). They also cause far fewer greenhouse gasses to be emitted. Also consider that in today's litigious world, no one wants to s…
People that support these things are not really all that clued in.
There are many levels of fail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I climbed mountain passes that size with my infants carried in a pack. It was good clean fun and the babies loved it. They play in the pine needles and the sand and get sap all over themselves and then snuggle up with you in the cold alpine nights. Everybody has a good time. And I'm nowhere near as tough as Ms. Blum. (Annapurna I! Holy. Cow.)
Not sure about the definition of climbing. Seems to me falling might not be healthy for babies? As for hiking in the mountains, sure, why not.
Of course, there are various activities we describe as climbing that need more precise descriptions. Some of them are more perilous than others.
The most I did in the mountains with baby in tow was class 3 scrambling with a spotter.[0] Hacker News types like it specific.