Are Fire Retardants Putting Us at Risk? (Part 5)

  • Chlorinated tris, a chemical that has been shown to mutate DNA, is one of the chemicals being used as a flame retardant in baby product foam and furniture.(Photo courtesy of Abby Batchelder CC-2.0)

Flame retardant chemicals help keep foam and plastics from catching on fire. But certain kinds of these chemicals are building up in people. And hundreds of studies are suggesting links to problems with brain development, and thyroid and fertility problems. In the final part of our five part series… Rebecca Williams reports on the alternatives to these chemicals:

Transcript

Flame retardant chemicals help keep foam and plastics from catching on fire. But certain kinds of these chemicals are building up in people. And hundreds of studies are suggesting links to problems with brain development, and thyroid and fertility problems. In the final part of our five part series… Rebecca Williams reports on the alternatives to these chemicals:

PBDEs – or polybrominated diphenyl ethers – are flame retardant chemicals. Penta-BDE is a type that was the go-to chemical for furniture for more than 30 years. Penta was phased out in 2005 because of health concerns. So companies needed alternatives. Now they often use a chemical called chlorinated tris. But there’s a problem.

“Chlorinated tris was removed from children’s sleepwear in the 70s after it was shown to cause mutations and cancer in animals.”

Arlene Blum is one of the scientists who discovered the chemical could mutate DNA. She also discovered the chemical was being absorbed into children’s bodies when they wore their pjs.

“It’s now being used as the flame retardant in furniture and baby product foam across the U.S.”

Blum is a chemist at the University of California Berkeley. She recently published a peer-reviewed study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. She and her team found chlorinated tris in furniture. And they also found it’s migrating out of products and getting into house dust. And then there are other newer flame retardants.

“The other main substitute is called Firemaster. It’s a mixture of four chemicals, two of which are known to be toxic and two of which we don’t know too much about.”

None of the three big chemical companies wanted to be recorded. One of the companies, Albemarle, didn’t respond at all. Both Chemtura and ICL Industrial Products said in email statements that their flame retardant chemicals are extensively studied and safe.

Furniture companies say they’re in a bind. There’s a California regulation called Technical Bulletin 117. It requires the foam in upholstered furniture and baby products to meet a certain fire standard. And that usually means companies have to add flame retardants to the foam to meet the standard. Companies often don’t want to make separate products just for California, so they just treat everything with flame retardants.

Andy Counts is CEO of the American Home Furnishings Alliance. He says back when they were using penta-BDE… they were told it was safe. And they believed it was. Now, he says furniture makers are switching to new chemicals. They’re being told those are safe. And they believe they are.

“Certainly when we started using penta years ago there was no indication of any harmful effects. So it’s always a danger to use substitutes unless you have all the science in front of you. We feel confident that we have that. But as a furniture manufacturer we would like to avoid any questions about the safety of our products.”

At the same time, a handful of companies have moved away from PBDEs and other suspect flame retardants altogether.

Arlene Blum says it’s a good idea to reduce your exposure to those flame retardants. She says they migrate out of products and get into dust.

“You just want to be really good about keeping dust down in your house. Do a lot of vacuuming with a HEPA filter, wet mopping and then always washing your hands before you eat.”

She says one rule of thumb is to look for the little white label on furniture and baby products with foam in them that says it meets California TB 117… and then avoid buying that stuff if you can.

She says we will all probably be surrounded by PBDEs in our homes for decades.

The hope is this new generation of flame retardants will be safe. But there’s no government standard to guarantee that.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Recycling Your Ride

  • Bassam Jody of Argonne National Laboratory is helping develop novel ways of sorting and cleaning shredder residue left over from cars, construction debris, and major household appliances. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

We’ve all heard over and over again
about that government program ‘Cash
for Clunkers.’ It’s got drivers
thinking about what exactly happens
to dead cars, regardless of how they
die. Shawn Allee looks at
how car recycling works and who’s
trying to improve it:

Transcript

We’ve all heard over and over again about that government program ‘Cash for Clunkers.’ It’s got drivers thinking about what exactly happens to dead cars, regardless of how they die. Shawn Allee looks at how car recycling works and who’s trying to improve it:

You might not think about it this way, but your car just might be the biggest thing you own that gets recycled.

I mean, someday you’re going to junk it, or maybe some future owner will. Anyway, I’m out in front of a car shop in my neighborhood, and with the health of cars in mind, I thought I’d ask some people around here, percentage-wise, just how much of a junked car gets recycled?

“I would say maybe, like, 5% of the car.”

“I’ll say, 20% – 30% probably, of a car.”

“I guess the recycled one could be 30% of the car.”

“I guess, like, 50%.”

“About 70%.”
++

In my little unscientific survey here, it turns out that most people are giving a pretty low estimate of how much of a junked car ends up being recycled.

The auto industry and the federal environmental protection agency say about 80% of the junked car gets recycled. The rest heads to landfills. That sounds pretty good, but that means we bury about five million tons of junked car pieces each year.

To understand why they can’t recycle even more of the car, I’m going to talk with Jim Watson.

He runs ABC Auto Wreckers in a suburb just south of Chicago.

“We don’t want to landfill anything. The objective is to take the vehicle, process it and have all the parts be used.”

Watson shows me his shop where he pulls parts for the used market. A dozen workers lift hoods, twist tires, and pull out stuff I don’t even recognize. It’s like an assembly line in reverse.

“They do an analysis and inventory each of the parts of the car that have a probability of sale and then they harvest or pull those parts off the car.”

Watson and some of the bigger auto wreckers have parts-scrapping down to a science, but it’s expensive to keep pulling parts and keep space open for scrap yards.

Eventually, Watson’s pulls off everything usefull and he’ll send it to a car shredder.

“A machine that beats it apart and shreds the car into small fist-sized or hand-sized components.”

Recyclers can pull out big shreds of steel and aluminum, but about 20% of the car is left-over. This shredder residue gets tossed into landfills. But scientists are thinking about how to recycle this shredded mess.

One works at a lab at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago.

“This is what shredder residue looks like.”

Dr. Bassam Jody reaches into a cardboard box and scoops a jumble of car seat foam, metal cable, wood, and shards of plastic.

Jody says shredder residue is a recycler’s nightmare.

“Maybe there are more than twenty different kinds of plastics. I tell you, plastics are generally incompatible, they don’t like each other and they don’t work together very well.”

Jody is developing machines to safely clean and separate all this stuff. It’s tough science.

Jody: “The more things you have in the mixture, the harder it is to separate. The trick is, you have to do it economically, and to produce materials that can be used in value-added products.”

Allee: “What can you make out of them?”

Jody: “Car parts. For example, this is a seating column cover.”

Jody says he gets a kick out of his work. He might just squeeze a bit more good out of our cars.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Turning Clunkers Into New Cars

  • The scrap heap - what's left of hundreds of cars and other metal waste after they go through a shredder. (Photo by Tamara Keith)

All those clunkers are working their
way toward the final melt-down at
a steel mill. Lester Graham reports
you’ll see the steel from those clunkers
again:

Transcript

All those clunkers are working their
way toward the final melt-down at
a steel mill. Lester Graham reports
you’ll see the steel from those clunkers
again:

The steel from those clunkers from the “Cash for Clunkers” program will eventually be melted down and used again.

Bill Heenan is the President of the Steel Recycling Institute. He says it’ll be a few months before that scrap gets recycled.

“It takes some time for that old automobile, the clunker in this particular case, to work its way through the dismantling system and then through the shredding system and eventually to the steel mill.”

Scrap yards can remove things such as fenders or hubcaps for used parts, but what’s left – including the engines – goes to the shredder.

Bill Heenan says those 700,000 clunkers won’t mean a glut of scrap steel.

“Let’s say there’s a ton of steel in each one, you’ve got 700,000 tons. That seems like a lot. But in a given year, we recycle 80-million tons.”

That 80-million tons of scrap is melted down and becomes the bulk of new steel products in the U.S., including new cars.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Soap Suds Whip Up Toxic Chemical

  • Consumer advocates say most soaps, shampoos, and cosmetics contain 1, 4 dioxane (Photo by Rebecca Williams)

Consumer advocates say your children might
be at risk because of the soaps you use. They say
most shampoos and cosmetics contain a chemical that
might cause cancer. Julie Grant reports they want
the government to clean up these products:

Transcript

Consumer advocates say your children might
be at risk because of the soaps you use. They say
most shampoos and cosmetics contain a chemical that
might cause cancer. Julie Grant reports they want
the government to clean up these products:

(sound of laughter)

Moxii Rose has been running around all afternoon. She’s
this tiny two and a half year old. She giggles as she dumps
her toys and spills juice on the carpet.

She’s excited when it’s time for a bubble bath.

(sound of running water and child in bathtub)

And so is her mother, Khalilah Pickings. Once Moxii gets into
the tub, she finally quiets down.

“And normally when we have bubble bath time, I just sit right
here. And let her do whatever she needs to do. Gives her a
minute to calm down, and me a minute to calm down.”

Khalilah says she hasn’t thought about it a lot, but figures if
the stores can sell kids bubble bath and lotion, they must
be safe.

But some consumer advocates aren’t so sure.

David Steinman started worrying about the bubble bath his
kids were using. He heard bubble bath might have
something called ‘1, 4 dioxane’ in it. The Environmental
Protection Agency lists it as probable carcinogen.

“I took the products they liked and some others that were
from other companies to a laboratory to have them analyzed, to see
if they did contain this chemical. And they all had it. Every
single product.”

Even the products labeled ‘natural’.

Now, you won’t find 1, 4 dioxane on ingredient lists on the
back of the bottle. It’s not added to soaps and detergents.
When other chemicals are combined, they create 1, 4
dioxane. It helps make soaps foamy and work well.

Steinman says that when children get in a warm bath, their
pores open and can soak the chemical right into their
systems.

Studies show that 1,4 dioxane causes cancer in lab animals.
Scientists are debating how much those findings in rats and
mice apply to people.

Bob Hamilton’s company sells soaps and dishwashing
liquids under the Amway label. He’s an expert on the
regulation of soap.

“There is not a concern based on the best scientific review
that has been done over many decades. The levels that are
found are minor contaminant levels that are well below any
concern levels as expressed by regulators in every country
around the world.”

The US government doesn’t really have any standards for
the amount of 1, 4 dioxane allowed in products. And even
though the EPA lists it as a probable carcinogen, the agency
says the tiny amount in consumer goods is still safe.

Consumer advocate David Steinman says the government
only looks at the amount 1, 4 dioxane in each product
individually. No one considers that we’re using bubble bath,
soap, lotion, and dishwashing detergent every day.

“When do a lot of little bits of chemicals become a whole
lot?”

Steinman wants consumers to force change. He wants
people to buy only the soaps that don’t contain 1, 4 dioxane.

But single mother Khalilah Pickings says she’s already
overwhelmed with trying to be a good mom. How is she
supposed to know whether products have 1, 4 dioxane and if
it’s a real concern or just something environmentalists are
worrying too much about?

“If it hasn’t hurt anyone and if people aren’t like getting
cancer or some crazy weirdo Ebola virus soap-causing
disease, just leave me alone. I’ve got enough to think about, okay?
It’s just me and her here. I don’t have time to think about
the soap that I’m using.”

Pickings says she doesn’t really trust the government, but
she has to assume if it allows the products on the market,
they won’t hurt her little girl.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links