Posts Tagged ‘Dangerous Chemicals’

Investigation Shows Poisonous Chemicals Forced Into U.S. Homes

Friday, May 25th, 2012

In the past several years, flame retardants in furniture, mattresses, pillows and other household products have become as common as the items themselves. Indeed, in many cases – and many states – the inclusion of these chemicals is now required by law. An investigation by the Chicago Tribune has revealed, however, that these laws were put into place on the back of fraudulent testimony, and against sound science showing that these chemicals are not only ineffective, but highly dangerous.

The star witness in support of flame retardants has been, for many years, Dr. David Heimbach. Dr. Heimbach specializes in telling stories of infants fatally and horribly burned due to the use of pillows, mattresses, and other products lacking flame retardants. His gruesome testimony leads legislators to disregard more abstract testimony about the long-term risks of these chemicals, including environmental and cancer risks.

The problem, however, is that Dr. Heimbach’s testimony has now been shown to be almost completely fabricated. He has also cited to a supposedly-independent community group who supports the use of flame retardants. This group was later shown to be simply an industry group made up of chemical manufacturers and created to promote their products. This group often publicly states that it is allied with various organizations of firefighters and victims, a complete fabrication. This same industry group pays the “fees” of Dr. Heimbach and other witnesses who testify before government bodies in support of the chemicals.

Studies on the flame-retardants commonly used in the U.S. have shown that they are linked to cancer, fertility problems, developmental disorders and neurological defects. Nor do they remain safely in the furniture and products where they are placed.

Instead, these chemicals leach out of these products and into household dust – where they create high levels of exposure for infants and toddlers crawling on floors and putting objects from the floor into their mouths. Although exposures for these young children are the worst, exposures have been rapidly and steadily increasing in all age groups. In the past four decades, blood levels of these chemicals have not only increased, but doubled – every two to five years. And although some chemicals are no longer used, blood levels haven’t gone down.

Yet the federal Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly allowed these chemicals into American products, often without even assessing the health risks. And it has approved and even promoted these chemicals despite the protests of its own scientists that they were dangerous to both humans and the environment, and despite the conclusion of the federal Consumer Protection Commission that these chemicals are ineffective and dangerous.

This has led to a continuing cycle – the chemicals are approved, questioned, and eventually withdrawn from use. Several have even been banned by the United Nations as among the worst and most dangerous chemicals on the planet. New, equally dangerous chemicals are then approved to take their place, and the cycle begins again.

Not only are these chemicals highly dangerous, but they are also not even effective. Since the 1980s, study after study has shown that these chemicals have literally no effect on household fires. In fact, when fires do occur, these chemicals make the smoke toxic, leading to increased injuries and deaths from the fire.

The industry typically cites to a single study from the 1980s in support of its claims of effectiveness – but that study’s author has publicly stated that the industry has distorted his findings. He asserts, like other scientists, that flame retardants in household goods and furniture simply do not work.

So why are these chemicals used? The answer is age-old: money. Annual demand for these chemicals has now topped 3.4 billion pounds. To get a sense of the volume of the problem, consider this: many of these chemicals are related to the pesticide DDT. When you choose organic fruits, you are avoiding a microscopic dose of pesticides. If you eat that fruit sitting on your couch, you are sitting on 2 pounds of a related chemical.

Our experienced products liability attorneys are appalled that this dangerous situation has persisted for decades. We urge our regulators and legislators, at all levels of government, to take action to ban these dangerous and ineffective products, for all of our safety.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago product liability lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.

Banned Chemicals Found in Children’s Products

Friday, May 27th, 2011

The use of chemical flame retardants in children’s products, including furniture, pillows and pads, and pajamas, has been an established practice for decades — to prevent serious burn injury to children.  In the 1970s, however, researchers began to examine how exposure to some of these chemicals in children’s pajamas affected the health and safety of America’s children.

The result was the removal of a class of flame retardants, called Tris phosphate chemicals, from children’s pajamas. This removal was a major victory for advocates of public safety and against dangerous products. The Tris chemicals were found to be a likely carcinogen, as well as posing other health dangers, including possible neurological problems, as well as fertility issues.  These chemicals were removed under pressure from scientists and the public in the 1970s.

Yet now, a new shows that these chemicals remain prevalent in a wide array of American baby products.

In the study published in the journal of Environmental Science & Technology, researchers looked at 101 baby products made with polyurethane foam.  These products included nursing pillows, highchairs, changing pads, sleep positioners (a dangerous product in its own right), portable mattresses, rocking chairs, and car seats.

Eighty of these 101 products contained chemical flame retardants.  Fourteen of them contained TCEP, a flame retardant classified by the State of California as a known carcinogen.  Four of the 101 products contained Penta-BDE, a flame retardant banned in many other countries which accumulates in human tissue over time.  In most of the products, these chemicals made up between three and five percent of the weight of the foam, but in some cases, up to twelve percent of the weight came from the flame retardants.  Specifically, the s study found:

Based on exposure estimates conducted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), we predict that infants may receive greater exposure to TDCPP from these products compared to the average child or adult from upholstered furniture, all of which are higher than acceptable daily intake levels of TDCPP set by the CPSC. Future studies are therefore warranted to specifically measure infants exposure to these flame retardants from intimate contact with these products and to determine if there are any associated health concerns.

As noted by some critics, the research did not take the critical next step – it did not study the infants and children who use such products to determine whether they were absorbing these dangerous chemicals from the products.  But the study did suggest that these infants and children were exposed to the chemicals at a rate higher than that recommended by the government – already a fairly lax standard.  Our child injury lawyers do not need further evidence, however – it does not take a study to know that chemicals that are dangerous when present in children’s clothing are also dangerous when present in children’s pillows, chairs, and padding.

Tris chemicals were not banned by the government when they were removed from children’s pajamas in the 1970s.  Indeed, it is overwhelmingly difficult for the Environmental Protection Agency to obtain bans or restrictions on chemicals used in the U.S.  As an example, asbestos is not yet banned, in spite of the conclusive evidence that it causes cancer and other fatal diseases.  Indeed, under current federal standards, manufacturers are not even required to indicate on the label that flame retardants were used, let alone to identify which chemical flame retardants a product contains.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, like the EPA, has also fallen far short on this issue.  The CPSC has had a federal flammability standard in the works for sixteen years, with no end to the process in sight.  When questioned, a spokesman for the CPSC simply stated that further research is still needed.

The time when such statements were sufficient is long past.  The products liability attorneys  of Passen Law Group join with others in demanding that the CPSC and the EPA take action to remove these toxic chemicals intended for use by the youngest and most vulnerable of our citizens.

For a free consultation with an experienced Chicago toxic exposure lawyer at Passen Law Group, call us at (312) 527-4500.