Citizens for Fire Safety Institute Turns to Leading Scientist, Dr. Gordon Nelson to Weigh in on Fire Safety Standards and Flame Retardants

Question and Answer with Florida Institute of Technology Professor of Chemistry, on recent allegations towards life saving chemicals

The Citizens for Fire Safety Institute recently sat down with Dr. Gordon Nelson, one of the world’s preeminent scientists working in the area of fire safety and chemical use. We thought this was important in light of allegations made in the media that have cast doubts on the need for various fire safety tools. We asked Dr. Nelson some tough questions that shed light on the need for greater education on the benefits of all kinds of fire retardant technologies. We hoped to also bring to the surface the enormous amount of “bad science” and “misinformation” that has been spread about the importance of making products as safe as possible while protecting human health. The Citizens for Fire Safety Institute also took a moment to discuss the latest media and studies on fire safety products, which suggest people take a look at the facts rather than rely on poor and inflammatory science.

CFFSI: Are flame retardants effective?

NELSON: The big lie here is that flame retardants aren’t effective. You’ll hear over and over again from many environmentalists that flame retardants in household furniture do not protect Americans in any way and that is simply not true. In a study conducted by the Department of Justice, Southwest Research Center, flame retardants used to follow the TB 117* standard provide substantive benefits in terms of ignition resistance, slower fires, and an increase in escape time. This is on the basis of some 25 tests versus the 2 that were recently cited in a story by the Chicago Tribune.

*TB 117 is the current minimum fire safety furniture standard that uses an open flame and smolder test to ensure protection against common house fires caused by matches, cigarettes and lighters.

CFFSI: TB 117 uses both an open flame test and a smoldering cigarette test. What impact would a smolder only test have, excluding the open flame test?

NELSON: You’ll miss half the fires. TB 117 is not a standard that mandates the use of fire retardants, but when facing an open flame test they are the most effective. In the U.S., 20-25% of fire deaths are from upholstered furniture. The latest data from the National Fire Protection Association show that smoking materials are responsible for 50% of these fires while the other 50% are caused by candles, open flames and other sources. What California and the UK have done is recognize that a very significant percentage of fires are open flame. If you take away an open flame test, you’re not fully protecting people.

CFFSI: Researchers have tested chairs both treated and untreated with flame retardants. Research shows that the regular chairs burned hotter than the chairs with flame retardants, but both fires eventually consumed the entire room. How were flame retardants effective in this particular study?

NELSON: Fire retardants can prevent fires from occurring, can make fires smaller and can help decrease the time to flashover. In the Southwest Research Center study, you can see there is a decrease in heat and delay in flashover. When you delay the fire, you can increase your escape time and allow the time it takes for fire services to respond. You hear many environmentalists like Arlene Blum question the required “12 second” open flame test used on upholstered furniture. That as a test parameter can be the difference between life and death. If I have 12 seconds, I’m out of the house.

CFFSI: The media has recently brought to light studies that claim flame retardants are endocrine disruptors. Is there a link between flame retardants and human health effects?

NELSON: What many in the debate like to ignore is the risk assessment data in Europe. Years ago, test workers analyzed the blood of members in the European parliament and what they found were some 100 different compounds. We need to realize that there are a lot of other things in our system; pesticides, perfume compounds and so forth. The real question is, are compounds found in parts per billion (ppb) a health concern? It is likely that human health effects are at a higher level than the concentrations found. We may have ppb levels of flame retardants in our systems, but at what levels and are those levels toxic, dangerous or even noticeable?

CFFSI: Do you think Dr. Heimbach was an appropriate person to testify at the fire safety standard hearings?

NELSON: Dr. Heimbach has seen and treated thousands of burn victims; he knows what the cost in human life is to fire. He is certainly a very highly regarded burn physician and he had difficult questions to answer. He answered those questions openly and honestly in a way that did not violate privacy. Dr. Heimbach has seen something you and I have not, which is the tragedy of victims. These are not just the people who die in a fire, but those who spend years and years in rehabilitation. Dr. Heimbach’s true passion is prevention.

In closing, Dr. Nelson advised people to know their facts before being fooled by scare tactics. Based on official data compiled by the State of California, there were 2500 upholstered furniture fires in 1974—a year prior to the required fire safety standards we currently follow. Twelve years later, data showed these furniture fires decreased by 50%. In 1991, furniture fires in California dropped 66% from 2500 fires to 800. Taking another look at numbers, fire deaths from furniture fires from 1982 to 1991 decreased from 60 to 10 despite an increase in population. Whichever outlet you choose to gain your information—the fact is—numbers don’t lie. If just one life could be saved from a fire, shouldn’t it be?

SOURCE Citizens for Fire Safety Institute