Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by nancyminusone | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

nancyminusone

Why should this be shocking?

1) Make thing that operates on hot surfaces/ near fire

2) Materials thing is made of known for being flammable

3) Add extra chemicals to help stop thing from catching on fire

Seems pretty logical to me.

View on HN

Because many of these flame retardants are not only environmentally toxic, but seriously incompatible with human life.

They shouldn’t be present in products designed to come in contact with food, when many good alternatives are available (inherently heat-resistant thermoplastics, silicone, stainless steel, etc)

> but seriously incompatible with human life.

There is no good evidence of this for the chemical in question.

Brominated Flame Retardants?! It's pretty widely accepted that these are highly toxic. The question regulators have been looking at [1] is how dangerous they are when used in domestic furniture, curtains, etc, where children might be exposed and it might be present in household dust. At least when used in these products, the presence of BFRs hopefully does more good than harm, by preventing fires.

But nobody ever thought anyone would actually be crazy enough to put BFRs in kitchen utensils, where perfectly good, and cheap, alternatives exist!

[1] https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-t...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decabromodiphenyl_ether

> In 2004, ATSDR wrote "Nothing definite is known about the health effects of PBDEs in people. Practically all of the available information is from studies of laboratory animals. Animal studies indicate that commercial decaBDE mixtures are generally much less toxic than the products containing lower brominated PBDEs. DecaBDE is expected to have relatively little effect on the health of humans."

But I'm sure you're right. After all, history tells us that if someone is widely accepted to be a witch, they must be a witch.

For my part, I’m certain your counter-argument is the more accurate take. After all, history tells us that such studies are never quietly funded by the industries most likely to profit off of positive results, without regard to human cost.

You are saying that if my argument cannot be conclusively shown to be 100% correct, it must be assumed to be incorrect. Way to stack the deck in your favor, champ.

I am sorry you took that as my meaning! I certainly didn’t intend to claim you needed to prove your case 100% or be excoriated, and I understand you taking affront, given that interpretation!

My understanding was that you were arguing that any hint of disagreeing with current scientific understanding was equivalent to believing in witchcraft, given the similar lack of evidence — an eminently defensible position, no question.

However: the witch hunters at Salem also had plenty of evidence to support their claims — albeit evidence we can now see with modern eyes as hopelessly wrong and heavily weighted by the powers that be in order to advance their own interests (land grabs, mostly).

Unfortunately the average citizen at the time had no way of interrogating the veracity and efficacy of either the claims of witchcraft, nor the very tests by which said witchcraft could supposedly be revealed.

Which leads to my intended point, which is that I sure hope this doesn’t turn out to be another leaded paint situation (we knew lead was poison but didn’t account for dust particles and childhood curiosity), or a climate change situation (the companies themselves knew it was harmful and flooded the field with misleading studies), or an arsenic situation (basically Victorian leaded paint), or a tobacco situation (4 out of 5 doctors recommend X), etc.

Essentially: misaligned incentives can be equally, if not more, powerful than the scientific method itself when it comes to shaping public policy.

But I do I apologize for glibly mirroring your own phrasing when making my own point, I can see how that would be frustrating, especially without the added historical context with which you may be unfamiliar.

Right, so even way back in 2004 they (PBDEs) were known to be toxic in animals. But you won't accept that they're toxic to humans too until it's proven? How would you propose to obtain such proof? Human trials? Will you volunteer?

You made the original claim without evidence. It's up to you to provide that evidence. You're engaging in a classic crank move there. I'm just applying Hitchen's Razor: "what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."

I have pointed out that these specific chemicals look to be less toxic than the class in general, so just pointing to evidence about the class in general is not sufficient.

Wood is also known for being flammable, but wooden cooking tools are very common. I think anyone who cooks a lot has an intuitive understanding that just touching something hot is not enough to make anything in a kitchen catch on fire, and that home kitchen fires are relatively rare even with a gas stove involved. So it is surprising to learn that there are flame retardants in these tools because they clearly aren't necessary.

The flame retardants were added to the plastic cases of electronics, which at the end of their lives got recycled into kitchen utensils.

That is why white plastic utensils are not being called out: although white utensils are common, white electronics cases are rare, so the white utensils do not have high levels of retardants.

I understand, I'm just explaining why the average person wouldn't expect to find flame retardants in kitchen tools. It is not a logical assumption like the other comment claimed.

The problem were not the flame retardants per se but the black plastic added from other recycled electronic devices to get the black color flame retardants.

The flame retardants aren’t there on purpose. If they had the choice there wouldn’t be any in these plastics.

The flame retardants are not intentionally added to the materials.

You forgot:

4) Profit

Then it’s entirely not shocking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com