Flame retardants ignite controversy
Accurate figures are difficult to obtain, but it has been estimated that fires kill around 10,000 people a year globally, in which the cause is attributed to faulty electrical wiring in buildings and in electrical equipment. Flame retardants have been used very effectively in a wide variety of electrical equipment to prevent fires, reduce their seriousness and also to delay onset to allow people more time to evacuate. In fact, research has shown that when flame retardants are used as additives to plastics, the amount of time to escape is increased by 15 times. Since they were introduced, thousands of lives have been saved, and so there is no doubt about their value.
Many types of plastics burn very easily. It has been estimated that the plastics in a typical TV set are equivalent to 1.5 gallons of gas, not something consumers want in their living rooms! However, only around 12% of plastics contain flame retardants. Some types are inherently resistant to fire, such as rigid PVC, and so do not need flame retardant additives. Some equipment is not at risk such as battery powered products like mobile phones because of the low voltages used, and therefore flame retarded plastics are not needed. Mobile phone battery chargers, however, do need to have flame retardants as they are powered at standard voltages, and so arcing and high temperatures can occur if there is a defect.
But BFRs (brominated flame retardants) are now at the center of considerable debate. The review of the ROHS directive, undertaken by the German organization Oko on behalf of the European Commission, is looking at a significant number of them, along with 46 other chemical compounds, and may well recommend the restriction of some, or all of them.
So, why will they be banned when many have already been tested, and it was concluded that they pose no threat to human health and the environment?
Well, Oko is recommending a ban on all organobromine and organochlorine compounds, including brominated flame retardants because of “backyard recycling” of WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) in countries that do not have the know-how, or facilities, to dismantle safely.
The toxic fumes created by backyard and roadside fires are having a significant affect on human health, even causing death.
While the Basel Convention should stop the shipping of WEEE to such countries, a lot of the scrap still comes from the likes of the United States, which has not yet ratified it.
Flame retardants seem a classic example of a need for a risk-benefit balance based on assessments that the ROHS directive and REACH regulations were designed to resolve. It’s a trade-off between safe furniture, fabrics, and electronics or the fatalities caused in the poorer villages of China, India, and Africa.
I would be interested in your thoughts. Share them below.
About the author
As director of legislation and environmental affairs, Gary Nevison is Newark’s and Farnell’s spokesperson and customer interface on legislation that affects the electronics industry, such as the ROHS (all variations around the world, including China ROHS), REACH, EuP, and WEEE directives. For more on Gary, click here.
Buy Cialis commented:
SteaveTheMighty commented:
London escort services commented:
Escort in London commented:
PhillDoc commented:
Gary Nevison commented:
Hugh commented:
Luis commented:
Charlie commented:
Bob commented:
desert rat commented:
Anti-Luddite commented:
justme commented:
Logic - 0, Insanity - 1 commented:
lets turn the clock back commented:
Not O-Riley commented:
Organophosphorus commented:
