[sittnick]

Does anyone ever bother to do a risk assesment on stuff like this? How many people will be burned to death in fires that could have been limited, or prevented, from the use of flame retardants?

The articles claimed these products were developed in the '80s. I recall flame retardant (non-asbestos) materials in the '70's. Were they so ineffective?

On the other hand, I can't help but recall the "environmentally friendly" tiles that were instrumental in the recent space shuttle disaster.

[doc30]

I believe these products were developed in the '80s for three reasons. First, replacements and substitutes for asbestos were needed. Secondly, the current flame retardants didn't have the necessary physical properties to make them processible in textiles and plastics and to be effective in low concentration. And thirdly, it was to add protection and to add value to materials in areas where flame retardants hadn't or couldn't be used previously. Asbestos underwear is handy in a flame war, but not practical for consumer, daily use.

[Squawk 8888]

I recall flame retardant (non-asbestos) materials in the '70's. Were they so ineffective?

They were banned back at the start of the "everything causes cancer" era. I remember reading in Bill Simon's memoirs a story about a clothing firm was mandated by one federal agency to treat kids' pajamas with a flame retardent that was banned by another agency. The company managers decided just to shut down and avoid the headaches.