Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Firefighters call for ban on flame retardants[Canada]
CanWest News Service ^ | 01 Nov 2007 | Carly Weeks

Posted on 11/01/2007 11:19:40 AM PDT by BGHater

OTTAWA -- A coalition of environmental groups and firefighters are calling on the federal government to ban flame retardants they say are toxic and pose a serious health risk.

The group of chemicals are called polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, and are commonly found in many consumer products, such as the casings of television sets, curtains and carpets.

Numerous scientific studies indicate these chemicals are linked to serious health issues, including neurological and reproductive problems, said Lisa Gue, environmental health policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation.

"We are calling for all chemicals in this class ... to be banned," she said.

Although the government has already determined these chemicals are toxic and proposed some regulations, they are "wholly inadequate" because they would exempt some of the most common and dangerous chemicals, Gue said.

Although the chemicals may pose a serious risk to any individual, firefighters are particularly vulnerable because they may breathe in the toxic substances through smoke when fighting fires, said Jim Lee, assistant to the general president for Canadian operations of the International Association of Fire Fighters union.

The groups are calling for a complete ban on the chemicals and are sending letters to Health Minister Tony Clement to take action immediately.

They said they want the House of Commons environment committee to put flame retardants and the need for a ban on the agenda as soon as possible.


TOPICS: Canada; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: antiscience; canada; chemicals; firefighters; jobsecurity; neoluddites; retardants; retards

1 posted on 11/01/2007 11:19:41 AM PDT by BGHater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BGHater

Otherwise known as the Full Employment for Firefighters Act...


2 posted on 11/01/2007 11:21:21 AM PDT by gridlock (ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater
PBDEs, and are commonly found in many consumer products, such as the casings of television sets, curtains and carpets.

So that's who's really behind this.


3 posted on 11/01/2007 11:32:21 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan (Take the wheel, Fred.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

PERFECT! In addition to stopping good land management and maybe preventing some of the more voracious fires, the enviros want to stop using a working chemical set. They should turn some of that fervor toward coming up with better processes for fire fighting. Massive delivery of quantities of Co2 maybe, or larger capacity airborne water delivery systems.

Silent spring all over again.

ruefully


4 posted on 11/01/2007 11:35:49 AM PDT by petro45acp (NO good endeavor survives an excess of "adult supervision" (read bureaucracy)!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater
Excuse me!!!!!!! It's flame mentally challengedants.
5 posted on 11/01/2007 11:36:56 AM PDT by VirginiaConstitutionalist (Scary thought: Half of all people are dumber than the average person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: petro45acp

I can understand why the firefighers wound want the chemicals banned? Believe, firefighters want every tool they can put in their kit but they don’t want some that may do them harm.
I think they would support another formulation that didn’t carry the known hazards they are concerned about.


6 posted on 11/01/2007 11:54:32 AM PDT by em2vn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

They should ban fire extinguishers too.They`re full of CO2./sarc off


7 posted on 11/01/2007 11:57:53 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: petro45acp

Have you read any of the peer reviewed studies on the birth defects attributed to PBDEs?

Even worse, Canadian gov scientists at (OEHHA) have done some of the best research on the subject, yet the government refuses to act.

Now, I also understand there is no replacements available at the same price points. So phase outs to allow market adjustments would be proper.


8 posted on 11/01/2007 12:00:02 PM PDT by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

There is a problem that has become quite accute over the last few years.

How can you tell if someone has a valid claim or not, when there are so many idiotic claims made these days to further causes?

The left has brought us to the place where anyone who lofts concern over something is dismissed out of hand as a fringe moonbat, accurately or not.


9 posted on 11/01/2007 12:42:10 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Mrs Crinton have Pay Feava. There she go now. "Ah Hsu Ahhh Hsu Ah Hsu!" Crintons worth every penny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

“A coalition of environmental groups and firefighters are calling on the federal government to ban flame retardants they say are toxic and pose a serious health risk.”

They did the same thing with PCBs which were erroneously declared as cancer causing. This resulted in numerous deaths from fires after they were replaced with less effective materials. Liberals never learn.


10 posted on 11/01/2007 12:43:54 PM PDT by Hacklehead (I'm not here to make friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

Uh, last I checked there is a reason why firefighters mask up in SCBA before entering a building that’s on fire.

I wonder why they don’t just ban everything like paint, photographs, plastics, carpets, fabric coverings, metals, wood products, etc since they give off toxic fumes when they burn </sarcasm>


11 posted on 11/01/2007 12:53:56 PM PDT by 2CAVTrooper (A vote for ron paul IS a vote for hillary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander

Hey my children never wore the fire retardent pajamas, back when one couldnt get them. Back then they wore long underwear. One less chemical in their lives.


12 posted on 11/01/2007 3:05:28 PM PDT by Chickensoup (If it is not permitted, it is prohibited. Only the government can permit....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson