Talk:Polybrominated diphenyl ethers

There is a confusing mixture of PDBE and PBDE on this page. Are these 2 different animals, or just transposition?

---

'Of the three, octa is most commonly used and is considered the "safest" of the three.' - I thought deca was the safest, and is probably now the most common. 83.67.201.204 14:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought so too, so I just changed it to deca. Notably: EU has banned octa and penta, but not deca. Also, a quick web search produced a variety of sites claiming deca was the most common. --Lmnop 05:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

naturally occuring

It has also been found that methoxylated PBDEs have been formed by marine sponges in the environment

Reference? --Agent Fog 17:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"extremely unlikely" (main section)

Is the following sentence a conclusion of the researchers or the wikipedian's opinion?

However this source is extremely unlikely to account for the concentrations of PBDEs measured in human tissues, wildlife, household dust and common foods.

--Agent Fog 17:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No one credible makes the argument that PBDEs measured in household dust, people's body tissues, or environmental samples could be naturally occurring. Not even the people who produce these chemicals! It is virtually impossible to find a citation for this, because it is so unlikely. But I dug up a fact sheet from the Canadian government that has the text in bold. "PBDEs are not naturally occurring, but they have been found at higher-than-expected levels in breast milk and in the blood and fatty tissues of humans in various countries." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.78.30 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Health Concerns

This entire section seems valid, but is in dire need of specific references. Health concerns with PBDEs are not cited, for example, nor is industry support for PBDEs. However, the current paragraph on the brominated flame retardant industry is very misleading. The assertion that there is no risk from deca-BDE is erroneous. The risk to human health as it is currently understood may be very low (as understood by public health officials), but this does not equal no risk. It seems that industry responses might be better served if, 1) they're put into their own section; 2) entered by someone other than a non-anonymous editor (which I am wildly speculating is a PR firm for the brominated flame retardant industry). Kristan 04:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. Right now I am doing some research and I intend to revise the article in the following ways:

• Add relevant external links and try to put references where they are currently needed. Partially done.
• Move the industry's response into its own subsection. Done.
• Mention that the possibility of metabolisation of "deca" into more persistent compounds is being studied. [1], [2], [3]
• Deca has been found to be more toxic than previously thought, may debrominate. [4], [5], [6]

--Agent Fog 15:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC). Re-edited on 17:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC).

Neutrality?

I'd argue that this article is biased in favor of PBDEs, and someone else also seemed to notice because they added the "citation needed" tags wherever something seemed to be a little off. I'm writing a paper about PBDEs right now, and I came to wikipedia for links (as I tend to do), so I'm a little busy, but I'll try to find sources for what I can and remove what I can't find sources for later. One problem is a lack of sources on PBDEs -- but I'm calling some companies to find some stuff out; hopefully that will help. CaTigeReptile 12:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you were being bothered by the same paragraph as me. It has been moved to a subsection to make it clear that it's the BFR's industry's arguments (which they still have to support with references).--Agent Fog 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning this topic you should contact the user that has made this edit. I would contact him by e-mail. As you see here (2nd account of the same user), he is a science advisor of the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum. 217.11.34.119 11:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Industry's Position subsection

I'm tempted to remove that subsection and its contents altogether. Now that I read that paragraph again (after having isolated it in a subsection), I have concluded the following:

• The first two sentences don't contribute directly to the PBDE article, and are stated as POV.
• The third sentence repeats something already said in the introduction.
• The fourth sentence DOES HAVE something to rescue: Pressure to shift to less studied alternatives could have a negative outcome.

So, that last idea should be rescued and moved out of the subsection. The susbsection itself should be removed, because it is essentially a POV section in a scientific article. Perhaps also someone with knowledge on the subject could write an Alternatives to PBDEs section. --Agent Fog 17:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

there should be a section on the HISTORY of this substance, including how long ago it was invented, how long its been used, who invented it, etc.

The whole article is just lacking alot of needed information . Can someone please work on this, especially by providing information on the history and origin of this substance. Im very interested in knowing how long this stuff has been used in modern society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.114.107 (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I need to know if Polybrominated diphenyl ethers are used to fight forest fires? 207.118.4.167 (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)