Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

Health

Flame Retardants Are Toxic & Haven't Been Shown to Save Lives. Why Are They Ubiquitous?

80beatsBy Sarah ZhangMay 10, 2012 12:49 AM

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

fire-alarm-e1336580561599.jpg

"The average American baby is born with 10 fingers, 10 toes and the highest recorded levels of flame retardants among infants in the world." So begins the Chicago Tribune'damning four-part series

about spin and science, or lack thereof, in the flame retardants industry. Flame retardant chemicals have become so ubiquitous--there's two pounds of the stuff in just the cushions of a large couch---because we've accepted the health dangers are worth the protection they provide against fire. Except, there is no scientific basis for the claim that flame retardants save lives. Part three

 in the series, published today, is a systematic debunking of the few studies the industry has continuously cited as evidence for the efficacy of flame retardants. One obscure Swedish study, available only in Swedish, relied on flimsy evidence from just eight electrical fires caused by TVs. The peer-reviewed paper also lists a PR specialist among its authors. The lead scientist of another study has disavowed what he calls the industry's "grossly distorted" flogging of his work, which looked at levels of flame retardants far above industry standard in household furniture. These examples and many more show how scientific authority has been manipulated for profit:

Industry has disseminated misleading research findings so frequently that they essentially have been adopted as fact. They have been cited by consultants, think tanks, regulators and Wikipedia, and have shaped the worldwide debate about the safety of flame retardants.

Previous parts of the series investigated a phony consumer watchdog group and a doctor who lied

in testimony on its behalf as well as tobacco companies who swayed fire marshal groups

into advocating flame retardants to smooth over the PR problem of cigarette-lit fires. The industry has gotten very clever at hiding its PR work behind faces of authority, but that doesn't change the fact they're manipulating the truth. At the Tribune'swebsite

is a whole media package including videos, interactive graphics, and the original documents unearthed in the investigation. Check them out. The last part of this series will be published Thursday.

2 Free Articles Left

Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

Want unlimited access?

Subscribe today and save 70%

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In