Talk:Flame retardant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Environment/health lobbyist/organizations have (had?) too specific focus[edit]

If you study this subject enough you find that banning specific things is not a solution as new ones can be synthesized these days easily (think of all the slight variations of recreation drugs that one 'hobbyist' famously made up to skirt around regulations/bans).

The only long term solution here is to have every product run go through GCMS test of a sample that captures both permeates/absorption and outgassing compounds. The Mass Spectra of such test needs to be assigned a code that can be looked up from eg. product labeling, Cable Sleeve/insulations (they already have lot of small print but nothing about the chemicals used) and googled. Such test equipment is these days portable and easy to use so there is no technical or cost reason preventing such. If end users get ill from using a product, the end user accessible mass spectra allows tracing possible compounds through elimination process of end user trying other products with slightly different spectra. (the spectra should make it easy to distinguish currently widely used compounds, the compounds need not be named if their 'frequency' in the spectra stands out)

This page explains how end-user/spot-test samples can be correlated back to manufacturing-compliance test samples even if different equipment was used https://www.mzcloud.org/Features — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.26.87 (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

People who are on the computer a lot (everyone these days!) have primary exposure from keyboard and accessories/cables, flooring, as these contain not only flame retardants but other things that pass through the plastic to skin and outgas. This trace exposure is not enough to make you ill in a manner that someone else could diagnose easily but it's enough to impair focus (you'd have to be already pretty unfocused person to notice the effect, if you are easily focused then you would not notice a minor impairment). Not every keyboard is the same, that's why every product run needs testing if they contain outgassing or otherwise permeating substances, as the consumer has no way beside owning a GCMS device to find out until they've become very sensitive over long term exposure due to accumulation of the substances.

I also have a theory that people are genetically bit different so it's possible some people won't notice such effects as easily, similar how to some people can consume diets that others find make them ill. The proof of this is in that some people, at the extreme, have facial and behavioral characteristics that are more close to specific ancestor ape species. It's likely that this explains why some get side effects from drugs more easily etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.26.87 (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

On the other hand, this materials can be produced out of melamine and dipentaerythriol. Herein melamine functions as a blowing agent that forms barrier to flame.

The mechanism of fire retardancy is simply inhibition of oxygen with radical formation of these organic materials, the element which burns materials. However inorganic materials behaves as capturing agents for oxygens molecules.

I know little of chemistry, but this sounds like balderdash. I came across this while looking through the User Contributions page for 212.98.201.1, from which address I've seen a fair bit of vandalism. It's possible that this is just some rubbish (I mean, "radical formation of these inorganic materials"? What the heck is that supposed to mean?) inserted by a vandal, or it may be from somebody with a weak grasp of English. If this is valid information, it's still incomprehensible. Either way, I'm cutting it. Mr. Billion 18:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Merge suggested[edit]

I would suggest to merge the articles flame retardant and fire retardant as these terms are very similar. --Lucido 13:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Flame resistant redirects to flame retardant, which may make sense from a chemistry point of view, but not so much from a functional point of view. (In general usage, flame retardant treatments make things flame resistant. Clothing, for instance, is marketed as "fire resistant", not "flame retardant".)

In my opinion, flame resistance deserves a page of its own discussing the functional uses of flame-resistant products and the applicable National Fire Protection Association and ANSI standards in the U.S. and related standards elsewhere in the world.

Jmozena 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC) [[Yes I think merging is a good idea. I wasted a lot of time looking for fire retardants etc. User: Jag


March 9, 2015 Dennis Hoffman --------------

Merging "fire retardant" and "flame resistant" does not make sense for my industry. -- Fire Retardant implies a material that when added to or combined with another material, retards or suppresses a fire. -- Flame Resistant implies that a material that when exposed to a flame or fire, that it resists burning and melting, and that when the flame is removed the material does not continue combustion on its own.

Flame Resistant (FR) clothing is widely used to protect workers from flames and arcs. This clothing resists flames, but the clothing is not used to retard a fire.

reference OSHA 1910.269 App E Protection From Flames and Electric Arcs. reference NFPA-70E "Handbook for Electrical Safety in the Workplace" reference IEEE/ANSI C2 section 41, National Electrical Safety Code(R) NESC reference ASTM F-1506-01 "Standard for Performance Specification for Flame Resistant Textile Materials for...." reference various FR clothing vendors


Not metals[edit]

"metals such as aluminium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide, antimony trioxide," is clearly incorrect - these materials are not metals. 84.245.0.98 (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Phosphates[edit]

Tri-o-cresyl phosphate is not halogenated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Balance[edit]

We've got stuff in here about the hazards of the materials used. We should also have something about the deaths, injuries, and property damage prevented by the use of flame retardants. That's what I came here looking for. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither am I a chemist. However, while I'm persuaded that removal of organohalogen compounds from such products in favor of other agents or mitigations is desirable, as a lay person I'm nevertheless able to detect padded-out, one-sided axe-grinding screeds and this article is a doozy. It doesn't take a lot of experience to recognize bias when paragraphs begin with phrases such as "Another interesting study..." "Interesting", to whom? Under what criterion of "interesting"? All that are missing are the "Evil Capitalistical Corporate Conspiracy" section and the proverbial, damning "Swedish Study". On second review, I see they're both here. Rt3368 (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of the last speaker. A quick look at (for example) source n. 13 (for posteriority: see here) reveals that it is apparently more or less a marketing presentation held in something called the J. Polyurethane Foam Association Conference. The thing itself is more or less a "how do you manage to sell the stuff" -presentation that highlights ways for corporations to save money circumvent legislation. It was held by someone representing Natural Foams Technology (UK). Its subtitle (which I find the most damming) was "The Cost, Technical and Regulatory Hurdles". I do not believe this to be a credible source for anything, much less for statements like: 'However, these questions of eliminating emissions into the environment from flame retardants can be solved by using a new classification of highly efficient flame retardants, which do not contain halogen compounds, and which can also be keyed permanently into the chemical structure of the foams used in the furniture and bedding industries. The resulting foams have been certified to produce no flame retardant emissions. This new technology is based on entirely newly developed "Green Chemistry" with the final foam containing about one third by weight of natural oils. Use of this technology in the production of California TB 117 foams, would allow continued protection for the consumer against open flame ignition whilst providing the newly recognized and newly needed protection, against chemical emissions into home and office environments.' Finally, I find this statement not to correlate with the content of the presentation. Flagging as an unreliable source. --188.238.86.148 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Court cases in WA State[edit]

  • Child died from unsupervised use of fireworks sparklers. Cotton has a lower ignition temperature (q.v. "Farenheit 451") than synthetic fabrics e.g. polyester fabric. However it was shown tha Cotton burns slowly and at lower temperature so that if child had been supervised the parent could have removed burning clothing with minimal injury. Polyester fabric burns too fast and too hot for response, melting to skin as it continues to burn. Similar in flash fire aboard a navy vessel where enlisted men, required to wear cotton uniforms, all survived but officers all wearing polyester all died.
  • PentaBorate often used as flame retardent on cotton products (furniture, insulation, etc)had washed out of childrens pajamas after many washings.

Shjacks45 (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference 404 error[edit]

Reference 15 gives a 404 error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.174.137 (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Flame retardant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flame retardant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)