Do you
oppose toxic chemicals in beds?
Vote Here
You vote and comments are needed to help
stop this law. They will be presented to the CPSC and Government officials.
Quotes from the Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) draft
proposal of this new law to flameproof mattresses, statements on health risks.
The CPSC document is 381 pages broken down into 6 pdf files and linked below. I
urge you to read page 17, and pages 132-169 of the CPSC report. Only 38 pages or
10% of this document are related to health effects of this law.
“Exposure data for antimony, boric acid/zinc borate, and
decabromodiphenyl oxide are needed before more definitive conclusions about the
potential risk of adverse health effects from these chemicals can be made.”
From page 17 of CPSC,
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/brief/mattressespt1.pdf
"CPSC staff has previously provided its opinion that boric
anhydride and boric acid are acutely toxic, ... Moreover, it is staff's opinion
that boric acid falls within the CPSC's chronic toxicity guidelines issued under
the FHSA. It is a probable reproductive and developmental toxicant in humans,
based upon sufficient animal data." (Page 148)
[These chemicals that are not yet considered safe are
already in millions of mattresses.]
“
Antimony is regarded as a possible inhalation
carcinogen. … There is limited data to suggest that antimony may be released
from a polymer matrix. … The results of the limited testing suggest that
antimony may be released in measurable quantities from a polymer matrix. …
the amount of antimony found in a barrier is expected to be higher than in the
polyester fabrics … The amount of antimony migrating from treated barriers is
expected to be higher as well.” [Antimony Oxide is not chemically bound and
could enter our bodies and harm us.] From page 166,
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/brief/mattressespt3.pdf
"Dermal administration in rabbits caused systemic toxicity
and even death (Fleming, 1938; Myers et al., 1978). Death was observed in
rabbits after a single dermal application of 6.7g/kg in corn oil. ... Fleming et
al. (1938) reported systemic toxicity and death after 5-8 days of daily
application of dermal applications of an unspecified dose in a paste of
artificial acidic or alkaline sweat." (Page 138)[Danish Environmental Protection
Agency testing revealed Antimony was released from Modacrylic fibers with sweat.
(page 163)] "One human occupational study reported reproductive effects.
Menstral cycle disturbances, early interruption of pregnancy, and increased
incidence of spontaneous late abortions ... (Belyaeva, 1967) page 140.
This law might save at most one out of one million people. This fire safety
law is presumed to save up to 300 lives per year, after 10 to 14 years, after
all existing mattresses are replaced. With three hundred million people in the
united states this is one out of a million. There are 3000 fire deaths each year
and the chemical industry estimates up to 960 are saved by the 1.2 billion
pounds of flame retardant chemicals we currently use annually in the US. It may
be a high estimate that we will save 10% of the fire deaths from chemicals in
mattresses alone. Every life is important but we must also consider the risks.
This will expose our entire population to sleeping in known toxic chemicals for
the rest of our lives.
The following is from page 17 of CPSC,
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/brief/mattressespt1.pdf
“Therefore, exposure and risk must be considered in
addition to toxicity when assessing potential hazards under the FHSA (CSPC,
1992) …
[Exposure and risk must be given more weight than it is
getting now. I can’t think of a worse chemical exposure than the close and
intimate contact of mattresses breathing and absorbing these chemicals eight
hours a day for the rest of our lives.]
“Data on potential exposures to FR chemicals does not
exist. Because of the lack of exposure data a quantitative risk assessment could
not be made. Instead, staff conducted a qualitative assessment of the potential
risk of health effects from exposure to FR chemicals that may be incorporated to
meet the draft proposed standard based on an assessment of available toxicity
data, knowledge of how FR chemicals might be used in mattresses, and staff’s
professional judgment.”
[In other words they are guessing. (‘qualitative
assessment’ ‘professional judgment’) They are guessing about exposing our entire
population to known toxic chemical that we will sleep in for the rest of our and
our children’s lives.]
[This points to the urgent need for independent scientific
risk assessments for any and all of the chemicals that will be used in
mattresses to meet this law. A professional scientific ‘Risk Assessment’ will
consider the amount of chemical and type and duration of exposure. They will
also consider special populations of infants, children, pregnant mothers,
fetuses, elderly, people with bedsores, skin rashes, asthma, pre-existing
conditions, as well as healthy male and female adults. The lack of scientific
quantitative data to prove these chemicals are safe to sleep in would likely
cause an independent scientific reviewer to recommend against this chemical use
in mattresses.]
The staff believes there are fire retarding methods (e.g.,
FR-treated barriers) available to mattress manufacturers that are expected to
present only a negligible risk of adverse health effects in consumers. This
staff opinion is based on the use of polymerized melamine compounds (resins) and vinylidene chloride in the manner described by the manufacturers of the barriers
containing these compounds. Exposure data for antimony, boric acid/zinc borate,
and decabromodiphenyl oxide are needed before more definitive conclusions about
the potential risk of adverse health effects from these chemicals can be made.”
[Exactly what is ‘negligible risk’? 1 in 10,000, 1in
100,000, 1 in 500,000. This fire law will save at most one in one million
people, after ten to fourteen years, when all existing mattresses are replaced,
and everyone is exposed. Which is the greater risk?]
[What about the millions of people sleeping in unsafe
chemical systems?]
[Another problem with these statements is that they say
vinylidene chloride is safe while antimony is not. Later in this document they
point out that vinylidene chloride barrier systems also contain antimony. How
then is this system safe?]
“CPSC staff will continue to obtain information on the
possible techniques the manufacturers will likely use to meet the draft proposed
standard, including the specific FR chemicals that will be used, and the amounts
applied to specific mattress components. CPSC staff is planning
migration/exposure assessment studies on treated mattress components to obtain
data needed to quantify the amount of FR chemical that may be released from
these mattress components. These data can then be used to more reliably estimate
the potential health risks associated with the use of FR chemicals in
mattresses.”
[Why has this not been done before this standard is
proposed? Millions of people are already sleeping in these chemicals. I hope
they get this done before this law is passed. It seems CPSC staff is being
pressured to rush this law through without adequately considering the risks.]
[I would suggest that when a boric acid mattress is tested
that there be a simulated ageing of the mattress to dry out any oils that hold
the boric acid powder in place. Perhaps bake it a 150 degrees for a few days or
weeks to simulate ageing. Then be sure to agitate the mattress to simulate body
movements that push the dead air space inside the innerspring mattress through
its surface carrying boric acid dust to the surface for us to breathe and
absorb. Then do measurements.]
[How can you accurately predict risks of seventy or more
years of close chronic chemical exposure?]
The above is from page 17 of CPSC,
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/brief/mattressespt1.pdf
Below pages 132 to 169 review the health risks and review
the known science.
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/brief/mattressespt3.pdf I urge you
to read these pages. I also urge CPSC staff involved in this law to reread these
pages.
Page 143 begins a review of Boric Acid and should be noted
that much of the science from the 90’s is not included. The EPA toxic review
from June 2004 is also not included.
http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/0410-tr.pdf
Page 147 notes, “No reports of neurological effects were
found for boric acid.” I think the EPS June 2004 report referenced some. I have
seen reports referenced in the ATSDR 1992 report and this report concluded:
“Neurological damage is an area of concern following boron exposure.”
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp26-c2.pdf
I have read Boric Acid accumulates in soft tissue and has a
half-life of 21 hours, and that it also accumulates in bone with a much longer
half-life. Since we are not exposed only 16 hours a day while we are out of our
mattress, will a low dose accumulate over months or years?
Exposure assessment begins on page 162
Comments show CPSC is relying on the mattress ticking and
mattress pads to reduce chemical exposure.
On page 168, “melamine is reacted with formaldehyde …
Formaldehyde is a known sensitizer, and is also regarded as a carcinogen. If
melamine-containing products release formaldehyde, sensitization (induction and
elicitation of symptoms) may result in some susceptible individuals. … Staff
believes that the mattress ticking should provide a barrier that reduces the
potential for contact sensitization.”
Our office has had numerous people call and ask about
formaldehyde in mattresses as they have very severe reactions from even distant
contact. How many people are sensitive to formaldehyde? Is it over a million?
In a 381 page report there are only 38 pages devoted to
health risks. We need to be very careful that in our zeal to save a small number
from fire that we don’t poison our entire population.
I hope CPSC staff will be diligent in assessing health
risks. Again I ask for independent ‘Risk Assessments.’ With enough diligence
they may conclude that the risk of exposing our entire population to known toxic
chemical in mattresses outweighs the benefit.
People expect the CPSC will protect us, not poison us.
Here are all the links to this document:
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/brief/mattressespt1.pdf
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/brief/mattressespt2.pdf
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/brief/mattressespt3.pdf
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/brief/mattressespt4.pdf
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/brief/mattressespt5.pdf
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/brief/mattressespt6.pdf
(Click
here for Printer Friendly version)
|