Toxic sofas are a secret scandal

So in a short space of time, we've had people running for cover, resigning from committees and being axed from their jobs for corruption.

What else will move things on? Get your MP to write to the Department for Business. I met them yesterday and while they're crapping themselves about the attention that's now on them, they admitted that in effect they're not going to make any changes to these Regulations for another 9-12 years. I spelled out to them that that means we're going to continue poisoning our children as they sleep but these people have segmented minds and somehow avoid taking any responsiblity, concerned only about their careers and pension.

By law all soft furnishing must be treated with flame retardant chemicals in order to be eligible for sale.

Based on the American principle of jurisprudence commonly known as "sue the one with the most money", the families of those burnt-up people would probably go after the cigarette manufacturer.

The smoker, after all, would probably not routinely have burning embers smoldering in their home without the cigarette, would not be careless with fire without the casual familiarity with the burning cigarette, and would not be smoking at all without the addictive herbs and chemicals added to the cigarette by the manufacturer.

Imagine if a firearms manufacturer used television and movies to promote the idea that frequently firing live rounds in your own home was a fun and relaxing activity that is completely normal and acceptable (like Elvis shooting his television--free endorsement!). And occasionally someone might die from overpenetration. Gunmakers would then probably promote something like aramid or kevlar fabric wallboard sheathing, too, for more bullet-resistant walls. Arms companies have not, in fact, done anything quite that careless, yet they still get sued occasionally when gun owners are negligent. Not because they deserve the blame; because they have the most money.

If that knife manufacturer had deep pockets, you can bet your ass that eventually some clumsy cook would sue them.

Note that I'm not saying here that they simply fail to use some technology or chemical that would cause a cigarette to burn out. They are doing the opposite; a hand-rolled cigarette burns out on its own.

Cigarette fires are usually caused when a smoker falls asleep while holding a cigarette.

When my apartment building nearly caught fire because someone two buildings over fell asleep with a cigarette in hand, killed themselves, and burned down two other apartments, of course people wondered why cigarettes don't burn out on their own when you stop taking drags.

That is what I would assume anyway, I'm not in the industry.

Everything's a poison depending on the dose. The same could be said for alcohol or junk food.

> just look at the ground next time you're walking outside to see all the cigarette butts

Or soda bottles or fast food wrappers or oil dripping from cars or...

> and then they lobby to push for these retardants to be pushed onto the furnishing industry

This is a result of TB117 being signed by CA gov Jerry Brown in 1975 [1], more than 10 years after the surgeon general's report about cigarettes and lung cancer. If any lobbyists are to blame I would tend to look at the chemical companies.

What's more, California required the retardant, so furniture companies decided instead of making california-specific furniture, they'd put the retardant into all furniture. There's at least some blame on them as well.

> This is a tax everyone is paying for some smokers to get their fix.

I'd argue it's a tax everyone pays because California's government is/was run amok.

[1] https://www.kqed.org/science/11318/its-official-toxic-flame-...

Amusingly, this is more of a result of anti-tobacco campaigns. I have recently visited Prague and one of the things I noticed were the ashtrays everywhere and very few cigarette butts on the street. But in NYC, where I live, there are no ashtrays and so you get cigarette butts all over the place. Because smokers are not going to quit smoking simply because you removed all the ashtrays.

The common market is a trade alliance with some regulatory back-stops. In this case if the UK banned these chemicals and required a safer flame retardant, it would likely be legal elsewhere in the EU anyway because as the article says the currently regulations are too vague on WHAT can be used (so manufacturers use the cheapest).

Obviously none of which matters with Brexit. But historically the UK absolutely could have acted alone, as can other EU countries today.

"Kids not eating their vegetables? Thank Trump for that"

That last paragraph was weird.

Do your own research, but from what I found it’s not too hard to be careful about this stuff.