Toxic Hot Seat Analysis

Nick Ho '17
APES E Block
01/18/16
Information primarily from Toxic Hot Seat documentary

"Virtually every American home has flame retardants in furniture, and when you talk to people, they're surprised by that fact alone. These aren't chemicals measured in parts per billion or parts per million in a couch, they're measured in pounds and ounces." - Sam Roe, Toxic Hot Seat

Tony Stefani being interviewed regarding the establishment of
the San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation

Toxic Hot Seat is a documentary that tells the story of flame retardants, and how they affect humanity on an individual basis. The filmmakers, Kirby Walker and James Redford, followed the stories of a handful of characters who worked hard to influence legislature either supporting or against the use of flame retardant chemicals, like PBDEs (Polybrominated Diphenyl Ether). The documentary analyzes the effects that flame retardant chemicals have on the human body and on other, non-human entities. Possible consequences from extensive exposure to these chemicals include child learning developments, birth defects, adult cases of cancer. The true harm that these toxicants cause is exemplified in the case of firefighters, who are constantly exposed to the hazardous chemicals on a daily basis. Tony Stefani, a former fire fighter lieutenant at San Francisco Fire Department, was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer. Inspired by the aid his coworkers provided him with, he set up the San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation in 2006 (http://www.sffcpf.org/wp/).

Of the 84,000 chemicals in commercial use in the United States, most are exempt from regulation, and almost none have been tested for safety.

Sam Roe going through documents to find the true story of
the flame retardant chemical manufacturing industry

One of the first characters that we come across in the movie is Sam Roe, a Chicago Tribune Investigative Reporter who works, along with other Investigative Reporters like Patricia Callahan and Michael Hawthorne, to unveil the truth behind the flame retardant industry. Like Callahan and Hawthorne, Roe is set up with the tall task of finding and understanding the core argument of chemical companies, and analyzing their research and data to confirm its validity. What they found was that the three major chemical companies manufacturing flame retardants in the US, Albemarie, Chemtura, and Israeli Chemical, had little support to back claims that flame retardants were necessary, or even beneficial, to the American
public.

Sam Roe, Chicago Tribune Investigative Reporter

"In the government study by Vytenis Babrauskas, one of the findings was that flame retardants would give people a 15 times fold escape time in a fire. That's what the industry said. That's not what the study said, it was completely wrong, and it was easy to prove because we went to the author of the study, and he said 'This is absolutely not true, they're distorting it.'" - Sam Roe, Toxic Hot Seat

Screenshot of video published by chemical companies falsely
demonstrating the effectiveness of flame retardance

The tests that were being cited by the chemical industry provided strong results in their favor because of the skewed nature of their experimental procedure. The furniture used was all NASA grade furniture, and the flame retardants they used were the most potent and expensive kind available, as opposed to using the type of furniture and flame retardants that would be found in an average household. As a result, the findings from the experiments strongly supported the use of flame retardants, at least in the general public's eye. Additionally, many of the claims made by chemical companies were supported by a document so obscure that it was only ever published in Swedish. When Roe had the document translated, he found that the companies had used a tiny sample size of eight television fires. "The logic was just so fundamentally flawed," said Sam Roe. Using this data as a basis, companies continued to make bold  claims, suggesting that flame retardants would lower fire related deaths and save millions in rebuilding costs. Given that the stigma of the time was one of fear, this faulty information was eaten right up.

2,600 people die of fire annually in the US, and most of the fires are initially fueled by upholstered furniture.

Simulated flammability test demonstrating ineffectiveness
of flame retardants in practical use on furniture

In the 1970s, Andrew McGuire, Executive Director of the Trauma Foundation, San Francisco General Hospital, began to advocate for the manufacturing of self extinguishing cigarettes. He battled with the tobacco industry, who responded that furniture should be flame retardant rather than having cigarettes be self extinguishing, despite the fact that the technology was readily available. This was due both to fiscal reasons and because the corporations didn't want their product associated with the negative stigma of house fires. This led to the passing of California Technical Bulletin 117, requiring foam inside furniture to be able to withstand a small flame for 12 seconds before setting on fire. Eventually, manufacturing flame retardant furniture solely for California became too inefficient, and the furniture was sold across the US and in Canada. Unfortunately, the tests for TB 117 also provided skewed results. The tests were all conducted on naked foam to provide the 12 second statistic, but did not take into account the fact that all the foam would be covered by fabric, which burns much faster and bigger. When the Technical Bulletin was first written by Gordon Damant in 1975, he wanted to ensure that any flame retardant chemicals used to fulfill the requirement would not have any adverse health impacts, but this section was removed in the final bill.

"The industry has worked hard to downplay risk and demonstrate that chemicals are working." -Sam Roe, Toxic Hot Seat

Karen Kerr Stone, Lieutenant at San Francisco Fire Dept. and
close friend of Alison Green

Because of the negative impacts it would have on consumers purchasing their products, many big companies felt it necessary to avoid confronting the issue of the health problems associated with flame retardant furniture. Pressing down on most furniture material, like polyurethane foam, releases vapors that, when treated with flame retardant chemicals, contains a carcinogen, or chemical that is known to induce cancer. Additionally, fires of furniture that has been treated will often be much more harmful, in terms of the smoke that is given off. Firefighter Alison Greene died of breast cancer after fighting fires and being exposed to the hazardous chemicals.

The three major chemical companies in the world, Albermarle, Chemtura, and Israeli Chemical, are responsible for producing three billion pounds of chemicals annually and make a total profit of upwards of $5 billion a year.

Website for chemical company front Citizens for Fire Safety
(now removed)

In 2005, UC Berkeley Chemist Dr Arlene Blum recruited an array of scientists and health advocates to demand changes to California's TB117. This was when the real change in public view and in government view towards the issue of fire preventing chemicals began to occur. One of the members Arlene Blum recruited was Hannah Pingree, a Speaker of the House for Maine. When she tested herself for these chemicals, shewas surprised to find that she was no exception to the high (potentially hazardous) amounts she had inside her body. She worked with California Senator Mark Leno to ban chemical requiring laws in California and in Maine. However, they were met with great resistance. One of the big, seemingly innocent advocates against the bill that Pingree and Leno wanted to pass was the Citizens for Fire Safety. While on the surface this group seemed to simply be citizens who wanted high priority on fire safety standards, further investigation by Patricia Callahan found that it was merely a front set up by big chemical companies. After long fought legislative battles, Pingree went to successfully sponsor 6 bills against fire retardants. Mark Leno, however, found less success. In the four bills he attempted to pass (Assembly Bill 706, Senate Bill 772, Senate Bill 1291, and Senate Bill 147), none ever became law.

On May 6th, 2012, the Chicago Tribune published "Playing with Fire," a multi part series that attempted to reveal the truth of the chemical industries. California Goveror Jerry Brown came to understand more about the issue and began to lend aid in the battle to get rid of fire safety laws. Since then, many more government officials have been getting on board with influencing the discussion of fire safety. One of the biggest leaps forward in the fight was the review of TB117, which now lo longer requires furniture companies to manufacture fire retardant products in the new TB117-2013.

I really enjoyed Toxic Hot Seat. I thought it was very meaningful that the filmmakers chose to tell the stories of individuals, giving the documentary a real life application. This choice allowed the audience to relate directly to the characters: firefighters, pregnant women, parents, etc. I also respect the decision to include points of view from both sides. This provided a holistic view of the issue, and allowed the audience to understand the reasoning behind why companies wanted to have fire safety legislature in place. I was particularly inspired by Tony Stefani, whose story was one of struggling with disease and making the most of his situation.

That being said, Toxic Hot Seat is not a documentary that I would have watched on my own time. It is not on a topic that particularly interests me. However, watching it has made me realize that although it may not have interested me, it absolutely affects me. I had never before taken into consideration the fact that sitting on my sofa releases a puff of toxicants and carcinogens. I had always believed myself safe from the dangers of the toxic world. Never did I stop and entertain the notion that big chemical companies don't have the public health as their number one priority. This documentary has made me wonder what role toxic chemicals have played in my life so far, and how it will inevitably play a role in my future. After watching this documentary, I know I will be more conscious of tags and labels of items I purchase, and whether they are in line with fire safety standards. My curiosity has be piqued, not only because the topic is so prevalent but because it has direct impacts on me personally. Part of me is grateful that I'm learning about an issue so present in today's society. It was only in the past few years that real change against the requirements of toxic chemicals has taken place, and I'm glad that I'm alive during a time period where change is accessible with the hard work and dedication of a few strong minded individuals.