UK science charity calls for ‘sense’ in BFR debate
Sense About Science (www.senseaboutscience.org.uk) is an independent charitable trust based in the UK. Its mission is to respond to the misrepresentation of science and scientific evidence on issues that matter to society. Science About Science works with scientists and civic groups to promote evidence and scientific reasoning in public discussion. In April 2009, Sense About Science commented on the BFRs debate on Sense About Science website. Here is an abstract from the comment piece:
“The levels of BFRs that have been reported are minuscule; the total amount in a person might just about cover the head of a pin. The overwhelming balance of evidence, including scientific reviews and government risk assessments, suggests that such levels are many times lower than the safety threshold. We have only been able to detect them at all because of advances in modern technology. The inescapable conclusion is that while there may be “detectable levels” of BFRs in the environment and in our bodies, there is no evidence that they are having any effect on our health or that of future generations. We can never categorically state that anything is “safe” - but as risks go, BFRs barely register, coming in well below everyday activities like driving a car and sports like rock climbing.
The immeasurably low health risk from BFRs pales into insignificance beside the high and very real fire risk we would face in a world without flame retardants. As Dr Hoskins writes in his editorial (Indoor and Built Environment, 2007; 16;2:91-93), “Who wants to go back to the days when flammable plastics killed and maimed people, particularly children?” Many people have few or no memories of those days, but figures such as the 200,000 deaths per year from burning clothing reported by the Washington Post in 1971 are testament to their horror. The EU Commission has estimated a 20% reduction of fire deaths as a result of the use of flame retardants in the last 10 years. 20% of 200,000 is 40,000 per year: that’s a lot of lives saved. As we have seen above, there is currently no evidence that getting rid of BFRs will save any lives at all. Yet as of July 1st 2008, no electrical products containing a particular type of BFR, deca-BDE, can be sold in Europe - and several other types have already been banned altogether1. But the industry says deca-BDE is one of the safest types of BFR. Should we really throw it out, just in case?
The world we live in, with its modern medicines and materials, is the product of many thousands of years of advancing chemical knowledge. Chemical flame retardants have a long history: the first ones were used in Roman times to stop siege towers from catching fire. There are countless instances of new chemicals superseding old ones - but only when enough is known about them to be confident that they are both as effective and lower-risk than what they are replacing. For example, paracetamol is only the latest in an evolutionary chain of fever-reducing drugs, replacing forerunners that were popular in their day despite the side effects resulting from their toxic nature. When there is good evidence that chemicals are harmful and lower-risk alternatives exist, of course we should stop using them, and we have: BFRs themselves replaced another type of flame retardant, PCBs, which were banned from children’s clothing in the 1970s after rigorous scientific testing proved them to be carcinogenic.
But we don’t always have that luxury. The combination of properties needed to make things less flammable is not common, and BFRs are the best we have in terms of effectiveness, safety and cost efficiency. While other types of flame retardant do exist, we have little knowledge of their effects, and they cannot replace BFRs in all instances. With no scientific evidence supporting the decision to ban deca-BDE and even less known about the alternatives, to stop using it right now seems nothing short of ludicrous.”
See the full article on http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/other/251
