July 2010: What are the next restrictions & regulations on Flame Retardants?

Dear Madam/Sir,

Presently, there should not be any restriction on any flame retardant, as long as there won't be scientific proofs that will advocate otherwise.
We've already had almost a voluntary scesation of decabromo diphenylether without any sound reason, just out of unfair pressure of economic interests hiding under the powerful "Green Peace" organaization that "terrorize" the chemical and electronical industry, imposing their populist baised and non based restrictions.
Methyl bromide, this efficient soil fumigation, has already been phased out due to Kyotto's internationl agreement on deflation of ozon layer causing global warming, presumably contributed by methyl bromide used in agriculture. Now, it's well known that the natural release of this material from the seas caused by a methabolism of certain microorganizms that, as a by product, it is formed in abandance, many folds more than produced indusrrially.
This, of course, don"t make allegation as to all restrictions put on flame retardants have not been rightful, just the contrary, yet the new to come have to be clinically and statistically soundly based and not fixed by some "thumb law".

Best regards,
J a c o b

From my perspective as a consultant and as a former researcher/inventor in the area of non-halogented flame retardants (FRs), I see a growing global impetus to restrict or ban the use of essentially all halogenated FRs. Even manufacturers of halogenated FRs are shifting away from these compounds in favor of more environmentally friendly and less toxic alternative FRs such as magnesium hydroxides, alumina trihydrate, zinc borates, melamine compounds, polyphosphates, intumescents, etc. The point is that there are MANY types of very effective non-halogenated flame retardants.

Increasingly, major computer and electronics manufacturers are eliminating ALL halogenated flame retardants from their product lines. Even those halogenated FRs that have been exempted for certain uses or in certain global regions, such as Deca-BDE, will likely be globally phased out in the future. In my opinion, all polybrominated diphenyl ethers face a global ban. There is simply far too much scientific data that clearly demonstrates the environmental and/or toxicity/safety hazards associated with halogenated FRs, and especially PBDEs.

Everybody involved in the field knows that inorganic flame retardants are requiring very high loadings, which is detrimental to physical properties of the compounds first and formost impact resistance and tensile properties. Polyphosphates are vey toxic, and have well recorded history of causing miscarriages, and birth defects, and being neuro toxins. Of course Great Western Public was scared to death by Green Peace, that they will die from cancer inhailing fumes of burning TV set or matresses, full of dioxines, but only few are engaged in manufacturing and handling polyphosphates, so why to bother.

It is technically proven and well known that halogenated flame Retardant are damaging the environment and poses big threat to Ozone layer. Non halogenated Flame retardants are also available at more or less same cost and can extend the equal mechanical and engineering properties as are offered by halogenated Flame retardants. But users of Halogenated Flame retardant are unaware of the fact of the availability of the optional non halogenated Flame Retardants. As if we can use the environment friendly products at more or less same cost giving same mechanical properties then why at all should we go for using a product that is harmful for environment.

Halogenated FR systems are the most studied FR system so far with most of the plastics. Hence we are aware of side effect of halogenated FR. First of all, one should understand the philosophy of using FR system in plastic material before taking stringent actionon it. It is used in the same way as antibiotics are used for curing diseases of human beings with side effect. Non halogenated FR system though in use with compromisation of mechanical properties of plastics and for many plastic materials , they are not as effective and efficient as halogen based FR systems. Further, these new FR systems have not been studied in details for health hazards . Thus, crying for environment by imposing ban on Halogen system is not the viable optioon but practicising the FR systems judiciously based on the need and developing alternative efficient and ecofriendly FR system will bring peace and prosperity to the mankind and environment .

The whole life is about hazards from cradle to grave !
The question is just the awareness and how to handle it.
The chance to die in my car is essentially higher than to die by well controlled use of halogenated FRs - especially those best examined ones per single application.
To replace them by alternatives with less available experiance is anyway careless.
Yes, some forms of halogenic compounds are very dangerous, but one should look to the tox-data of (white) phosphorus and some of its compounds when speaking about safety....People are afraid about a few microgramms of acetaldehyde in PET-bottles, but completely ignore, that their own body produces ten thousends of microgramms acetaldehyde every day.....we constantly hear about the harm of chlorine and still continue to consume salt.....we know about the danger of nitrosamines but still drink our glass of beer....because we forgot, what Paracelsus found ages ago: ...it is the quantity which makes the poison....we have totally lost our healthy feeling for what is really dangerous, hence being unable to justify the every day`s manipulation of our opinion....and one of the weakest ways of solving problems is to ban everything - until we have to ban breathing, when considering how much carbondioxide we create...
But the far biggest problem is that every sound scientific proof of facts is immedeately jeopardised by any populistic fundamentalist, knowing everything better.....
I feel somewhat tired to continue logical discussions causing no public effect at all.