
How Dangerous Is Your Couch? - danso
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/magazine/arlene-blums-crusade-against-household-toxins.html?pagewanted=all
======
greenyoda
The irony of the whole thing is that the flame retardants don't even make
furniture any less flammable:

"The problem, [the fire expert] argues, is that the standard is based on
applying a small flame to a bare piece of foam - a situation unlikely to
happen in real life. ... In real life, before the flame gets to the foam, it
has to ignite the fabric. Once the fabric catches fire, it becomes a sheet of
flame that can easily overwhelm the fire-suppression properties of treated
foam. In tests, TB 117 compliant chairs catch fire just as easily as ones that
aren't compliant - and they burn just as hot."

So the entire country is now exposed to the dangers of these chemicals because
in 1975 some bureaucrats at an obscure government agency in California came up
with an arbitrary standard that was not based in reality.

~~~
droithomme
Thanks for digging that up, I was wondering about that.

The article cites a retardant advocate as saying "Deaths caused by furniture
fires dropped from 1,400 in 1980 to 600 in 2004; a 57 percent reduction."

We know that almost all of these couch fires are caused by people falling
asleep while smoking cigarettes.

According to the CDC, in the same period, cigarette consumption in the US
adult population has fallen from 33.2% in 1980 to 20.9% in 2004.
(<http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762370.html>)

So a certain portion of the decline is due to the reduction in cigarette use.

Also, 43 out of 50 states now mandate "fire safe" cigarettes which contain
substances such as ethylene vinyl acetate which increase the chance an
unsmoked but lit cigarette will stop burning. The presence of these cigarettes
has also certainly led to fewer couch fires.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_safe_cigarette>

It is unlikely that the entire 57 percent reduction in couch fires over 24
years is entirely due to the use of carcinogenic flame retardants.

~~~
Alex3917
"According to the CDC, in the same period, cigarette consumption in the US
adult population has fallen from 33.2% in 1980 to 20.9% in 2004."

Those who smoke cigarettes also smoke a lot less than they used to, so total
cigarette consumption is maybe only half as much or less compared to what it
once was.

~~~
usefulcat
Also, it seems that smokers (at least in the US) are much more likely to go
outside to smoke now, even when at their own home. Sorry, no data just
personal recollections from childhood in the '80s.

~~~
Alex3917
This seems correct anecdotally. At some point they figured out that smoking is
somewhat less bad for you if you smoke outside, so maybe this had some effect.

~~~
michael_h

      At some point they figured out that smoking is somewhat less bad for you if you smoke outside
    

Smoking is in no way less bad for you if done out of doors. It's because no
one, not even a smoker, wants their domicile to smell like an ash tray...and
when selling a house, you don't want to cut out that large swath of the
population that doesn't smoke from your buyer pool.

~~~
Alex3917
"Smoking is in no way less bad for you if done out of doors."

That's not true. If you live in the house of someone who was formerly a heavy
smoker then you have a higher cancer risk yourself, because the radiation from
the cigarrettes gets into the walls and carpet. Which means that smokers
themselves also have a lower cancer risk if they smoke outside for the same
reason. I'd imagine it also somewhat reduces their risk for heart attack,
since second hand smoke increases your risk of heart attack, although I
haven't seen any stats on that.

------
nostromo
Looking at mattresses without flame-retardent led me to this provider:
<http://www.whitelotus.net/green-cotton-rx/>

Turns out you'll need a doctor's prescription to even order a plain cotton
mattress. Yet another perfectly reasonable regulation from our friends in the
California Legislature! :)

My least-favorite CA regulation has to do with eye-glasses. I lost my only
pair and went in to get a replacement on a Saturday, but I couldn't because my
(perfectly fine) prescription had expired. I had to make an appointment to get
an exam in order to get new glasses, but they were closed for the weekend and
booked for a few days.

So I spent about a week with headaches because some CA legislator decided it
was in my best interest to pay some practitioner to get the same prescription
for glasses every year.

~~~
_delirium
Are there any states that don't have a requirement of a current prescription
to purchase glasses? I've had the same issue in Texas [1], which usually
considers itself small-government.

[1] cf. <http://www.tob.state.tx.us/tobrx.htm>

~~~
learc83
I've ordered glasses from the internet here in Georgia maybe a dozen times
without them requiring verification of prescription.

Contacts do require one though.

Don't know if the company is just skirting regulation or if it doesn't exist,
however.

------
001sky
_Of the 84,000 industrial chemicals registered for use in the United States,
only about 200 have been evaluated for human safety by the Environmental
Protection Agency_

\--Wait, what? What is the EPA doing, then for 42 years?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Pro...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency)

~~~
srl
The next sentence:

 _That’s because industrial chemicals are presumed safe unless proved
otherwise, under the 1976 federal Toxic Substances Control Act._

In other words, the EPA isn't _allowed_ to investigate products unless
evidence that they are unsafe is brought before it. Makers get the benefit of
the doubt.

~~~
newbie12
The environmental movement in America is worthless. They spent all of their
time on lifestyle issues like battery cars, recycling, and global warming
(issues that also line the pockets of their large donors) when there are real,
profound issues like this. Even if the EPA can't act, how come only one crazy
lady is working on building the case?

~~~
dkarl
I wouldn't blame the movement itself. There's always a buzz around lifestyle
issues because there's continual evolution. Every day millions of individuals
make millions of choices, so every day the culture is changing in little ways.
There's a certain portion of the population that is an easy target for the
kind of education and advocacy that scientists are good at. Politics is a lot
harder. It's harder to make people care, and the target audience is much more
diverse. When it comes to people who aren't as well educated or who aren't
members of the reality-based community, you need an entirely different
message. You have to go toe-to-toe with industries that pay millions of
dollars to lobbyists and trot out doctors who say you're trying to kill kids.
And even if you try hard and do a good job, it's still boring stuff that's a
lot harder to turn into a story than lifestyle issues. Would this article
exist without a glamorous protagonist and the harm-to-children angle?

~~~
001sky
_When it comes to people who aren't as well educated or who aren't members of
the reality-based community,_

Please. This is america. We don't need to talk down to people like this.

200/84000 = 0.24%. EPA doesn't have a clue about 99.76% of the _registered_
chemicals for sale? Experts?

It doesn't take a rocket scientis or a member of the tea party to figure out
something is odd-ball with that?

It would seem more politically feasible to say, here is some tax money. Lets
test this stuff.

Because it looks like the original CA regs. requiring these chemicals was also
written to "protect" the public? who's protecting the people from the
protectors?

Ya know? its just kind of weird all around.

~~~
dkarl
I didn't mean to rag on conservatives, though I guess my wording made it sound
that way. I just mean people who aren't susceptible to argument with numbers
and facts, the kind of argument you would be comfortable making, the kind of
argument scientists are good at making.

 _It would seem more politically feasible to say, here is some tax money. Lets
test this stuff._

You're suggesting the most politically appealing pitch would be science and
government spending (on something that doesn't create working-class jobs.) I'm
not an expert on politics, but luckily we do have an expert opinion to compare
that to. The million dollar industry lobbyists thought the most effective
appeal would be a scare campaign in newspapers and a venal doctor talking
about imaginary suffering babies. They won. I think I'll trust them.

 _Because it looks like the original CA regs. requiring these chemicals was
also written to "protect" the public? who's protecting the people from the
protectors?_

Whenever we let science affect policy, policy is open to revision, just like
science is. We got seat belts right, we got a lot of emissions and pollution
laws right, but we're never going to get everything right. It will always be a
process of revise, revise, revise as we learn more about the science.

~~~
001sky
This is one of those cases where the old saying comes to mind:

 _Sunlight is the best disenfectant_

Good news is that sunlight is cheap and easy.

Science needs to do science. Information needs to flow. right now, the system
looks more a bunch of "experts" on the take or incompetent. More worried about
securing funding, managing their careers, promoting their pet projects, etc.
The [trust me] argument is a political failure, because of these demonstrated
problems.

------
huhtenberg
Reminds me of the situation around one of theories that tries to explain SIDS
- Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. If you had a kid, you know what it is - a
newborn dying in his sleep for no apparent reason. You put a healthy baby to
sleep in his bed only to find him dead in the morning. Fun stuff.

There are no exact explanation for the syndrome, but there are preventive
measures (such as always let newborn fall asleep on his back) that
statistically lessen the risk of it occurring.

One of the theories was that a typical crib mattress creates a fertile ground
for some fungal growth. Coupled with chemicals found in the mattress, this
creates weak poisonous gas emission, which ultimately kills the child. It's an
older theory that was verified and formally considered invalid. _However_ in
one country, New Zealand, there's a doctor who has been a vigorously arguing
in favor of this theory and now has a statistic to show that proper mattress
wrapping nullifies the risk of SIDS. From what I've read, he had very hard
time getting the authorities to even _listen_ to his findings, leave alone to
act on them.

I wish this lady the best of luck, she's got NYT on her side, I hope she takes
a full advantage of this exposure.

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome>

~~~
DanBC
Unfortunately sometimes smart people believe dumb things, and Dr. Sprott is
one of these people.

When you read the reasons why his "research" has been ignored you hear things
like "vested interest", "cover up", and "politics".

Dr. T.J Sprott has a book, and several products for sale.

His "statistic" is bogus; the NZ authorities stopped recommending mattress
wrapping in the 90s; he has no idea if babies slept or died on wrapped
mattresses; yet he claims it as fact.

His paper was awful. That's why people didn't listen to him - he has weird
ideas, he can't write them up, other research has tested his ideas and found
them wanting.

He claims that decreases in SIDS are because of his mattress wrapping
programme. He cannot explain why SIDS is dropping in countries that don't
practice mattress wrapping. He cannot explain why SIDS was dropping in NZ
_before_ antimoney was addedd to mattresses.

Don't forget that he's not a medical doctor. He is a chemist.

People like Sprott are evil. They come up with some plausible sounding theory,
and then they try to publish. No scientific journal wants it, so he self
publishes, and publicizes. This creates fear and uncertainty in parents. And
so children are at greater risk of death, because parents don't follow current
best practice (which is still not perfect but at least is evidence based) and
decide to try the advice of a wingnut.

~~~
huhtenberg
Well, from what I've read the book and the products came substantially after
he started voicing his concerns, which sort of implies that he might've taken
the matter in his own hands since no one would listen to him.

Even assuming he is a complete loon, the theory of an environmental cause is
actually quite plausible. Perhaps not fungus, not phosphorus, but something in
the bedding that just knocks those kids out.

With regards him being evil - I don't really see it that way. Why do you say
that parents stop following established best practices once they wrap their
kid's mattress? Parents aren't idiots, are they? What he's advocating for is
orthogonal to existing prevention measures, both easily combined.

~~~
DanBC
> Parents aren't idiots, are they?

The very many parents who believed Wakefield[1] and didn't immunise their
children prove you wrong. Some parents are scared, and want to do the best,
and cannot assess risk, and cannot understand scientific research, and thus
are vulnerable to woo.

See also "wifi is dangerous"; "cellphones are dangerous" etc etc.

> the theory of an environmental cause is actually quite plausible.

I have no problem with someone saying "Cot death could be caused by
environmental factors. Let's do lots of good quality research to see if we can
discover that cause."

Sprott did not do that. Sprott said 'I have found the cause. This is the
cause. There is no room for doubt. By not following my advice you are killing
babies. By arguing against my advice you are covering up mistakes that you've
made, or you are corrupt'.

Sprott says that no babies have died on wrapped mattresses. This is false.
Babies have died on wrapped mattresses.

Sprott claims that toxic gases are produced by fungus and the fire-retardant
chemicals. This is false - it's not possible to generate those toxic gases
unless you do weird things in a lab. (ie, it doesn't happen in the home when
the mattress is used normally.)

So what he has done is diverted attention from correct information; made it
harder for parents to remember and follow correct information; caused fear and
uncertainty among scared people. He has ignored the very clear recommendations
against his advice. And finally he's making money off this FUD; he's using the
conspiracy theory as a marketing gimmick.

[1] A really nice overview here:
(<http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html>)

------
gojomo
It's sad that premature regulation moved this into the sphere of politics and
mandated-purchases (from companies with an incentive to lobby). That means any
attempt to learn what's really going on, or make any incremental changes, is
gummed up by the fog of adversarial, zero-sum politics.

Without the inflexible mandate, the rule could simply be: label whether your
product has flame-retardants or not, and have evidence for your claims. Then
the industry could diversify, some brands emphasizing flame-resistance and
others lack of chemical additives. And, this diversity would mean we would
gather more real-world experience about whether the flame-retardant units are
really correlated with fewer/slower fires and fewer fatalities, or with more
health/IQ/behavior problems in children and pets, or both, or neither.

But because of the uniform monoculture imposed by the premature
politicization, we face a data white-out and policy is flying half-blind...
with only indirect data on costs and benefits.

Maybe a way out would be to compel a bisection of the industry output: you
must make half your units with, and half without, these additives, and clearly
mark the units in each category. Five to ten years later, we'd likely have
much better data about real effects.

------
ericdykstra
Another example of government creating arbitrary policies that just waste time
and money, and probably kill us.

 _Since 1975, an obscure California agency called the Bureau of Home
Furnishings and Thermal Insulation has mandated that the foam inside
upholstered furniture be able to withstand exposure to a small flame, like a
candle or cigarette lighter, for 12 seconds without igniting._

Who decided on 12 seconds? Why the inside of furniture rather than the
outside? Who does this benefit? Why is there even a _Bureau of Home
Furnishings and Thermal Insulation_? Why do government agencies like the EPA
exist when they can't say anything about the safety of chemicals that are in
couches in probably in upwards of 95% of homes in America?

It wouldn't surprise me if a flame retardant manufacturer was behind the law
to begin with, which is even more disgusting.

~~~
brendn
It was totally a lobbying effort to get the legislation passed. First by the
tobacco industry because of fires started by smokers falling asleep with lit
cigarettes, then by the chemical industry (by courting state fire marshals) to
boost sales of their flame retardants. The Chicago Tribune has a multi-part
series on it here: <http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html>

------
afterburner
Memory-foam mattresses have the same problem apparently. I have one, and am
looking into a dust mite bed casing (~$100) to prevent the chemicals from
getting into the air...

[http://lesstoxicstuff.com/2011/09/how-to-reduce-your-
familys...](http://lesstoxicstuff.com/2011/09/how-to-reduce-your-familys-
toxic-flame-retardant-exposure/)

~~~
lignuist
We spend a lot of time in our beds (at least we should), so we should take
everything about it very serious!

We recently switched to a bed that strictly consists of natural materials like
wood, latex, cotton and natural rubber. Absolutely no metal and no toxic
additives. Costs as much as our car, but is worth every cent. Sleeping feels
like holiday now. I also can smell the difference.

~~~
walkon
Do you have a link to info on such beds?

~~~
lignuist
It is called "Relax" and is manufactured by an austrian company.

<http://www.relax-bettsysteme.at/en>

~~~
rfzabick
Are you in the states? How did you order it? I could only find a link for
finding dealers in Europe.

~~~
lignuist
No, I'm in the EU and bought it from a local dealer. However, I wouldn't order
such a bed without having tested it. There are some parameters like the
thickness and the softness of the mattress that should be adjusted to your
needs, but maybe the Manufacturer ships also to the US when they get an order.

------
tptacek
Chemtura Firemaster 550 is "just starting to be analyzed"? It was introduced
in '05-'06, and here's its 2006 MSDS:

<http://www.busbrp.org/cireeh/uploads/Main/FM550msds.pdf>

------
NoPiece
I feel like the article is missing a basic analysis of whether there would be
more deaths by an increased number of fires caused by removing the fire
retardant, or by cancer cancer caused by fire retardant. Just give me some
numbers, and let me decide what kind of furniture I want.

~~~
Tichy
How does a couch catch fire, though? I suspect falling asleep on a couch with
a cigarette is the main cause. Smokers want to die anyway, so I'd give
priority to safety of children.

~~~
anonymouz
But what about the people living next door to your hypothetical smoker? It's a
good idea to have fire safety regulations, for the reason that a fire usually
will not just burn the person who caused it in the first place. (Whether this
fire retardent helps prevent fires or not is of course a more difficult
question...)

~~~
SoftwareMaven
The article specifically mentioned this case. The chemicals they put in the
foam would have absolutely no benefit if your apartment was burning because
the neighbor's started. Furthermore, there is little evidence that the
chemicals will prevent your sleeping smoker from burning the place down.
Droithomme's comment[1] very much applies.

1\. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4493813>

~~~
Tichy
I think the argument is that if your neighbor's couch catches fire, there is a
risk of the fire spreading to your apartment.

~~~
hncommenter13
I've seen a number of fire videos as part of a training class. It is
astonishing how fast a couch + room full of furnishings will burn:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ult6Biaf7oM>. From ignition to
flashover/fully-involved in 2-3 minutes. In a major urban area like SF, 5-10
minutes is a good response time for the first units on scene, not to mention
the time to coordinate a fire attack, ventilate and flow water.

I don't know whether the claims in the article are well-supported or not (or
what type of treatment the couch in the video had, as the videos are from the
late 80s/early 90s), but I think most people don't realize just how dangerous
a working fire in a single room full of ordinary furnishings can be.

------
hinathan
Arlene Blum is kind of amazing. I met her maybe 20 years ago in the context of
mountain climbing. Can't imagine climbing with a baby strapped to myself.

~~~
Tichy
So basically she is completely crazy? However I hope she wins the fight
against toxic chemicals...

~~~
WildUtah
I climbed mountain passes that size with my infants carried in a pack. It was
good clean fun and the babies loved it.

They play in the pine needles and the sand and get sap all over themselves and
then snuggle up with you in the cold alpine nights. Everybody has a good time.

And I'm nowhere near as tough as Ms. Blum. (Annapurna I! Holy. Cow.)

~~~
Tichy
Not sure about the definition of climbing. Seems to me falling might not be
healthy for babies? As for hiking in the mountains, sure, why not.

~~~
WildUtah
Climb is an English word which simply means to rise. "The sun came out and the
temperature was climbing."

Of course, there are various activities we describe as climbing that need more
precise descriptions. Some of them are more perilous than others.

The most I did in the mountains with baby in tow was class 3 scrambling with a
spotter.[0] Hacker News types like it specific.

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_(climbing)>

------
zafirk
between this and the article about brain parasites in california, HN is
scaring the crap out of me

~~~
publicfig
I don't know which article you're referencing, but we also had brain parasites
found in a man who died about 50 miles from me in Indiana. We've basically
been told to avoid freshwater lakes and rivers for now.

~~~
001sky
Those freshwater incidents sound like protozoa (amoeba) infections with an
high mortality rate ("Brain-eating amoeba suspected in Indiana death"). GP is
referring to another hazard, also seems to be from nasty water.
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4492244>. Don't say you weren't warned
though !

------
hollerith
After the foam in cushions described in the OP, the biggest source of human
exposure to flame retardants is probably consumer electronics. Particularly,
most televisions and computer monitors are encased in a plastic housing which
by law must be resistant to catching fire, and the universal way that is
achieved is by mixing flame retardants with the plastic while the plastic is
still "liquid". I read once that flame retardants make up up to 20% of the
volume of the material of the housings.

When you remove this toxic plastic housing, there is another housing
underneath made of steel, which holds the monitor or TV together just fine on
its own. The exception is the buttons for adjusting brightness, etc.

Last year, I removed _all_ the urethane foam from my home and the plastic
housing from my monitor. There is a row of buttons for brightness, etc, that
now hangs by wires, and there is a button near the top of the monitor for
power which now hangs down the back of the monitor by wires. Now that the
buttons are no longer held in place by the plastic housing, it is much harder
to press them, but that is OK because I never adjust the brightness
(preferring to use OS X to "switch black and white" at night). And I never use
the power button. (The monitor draws one watt when it is on but not receiving
video input).

Except for the small and not particularly noticeable row of buttons hanging by
wires from the bottom of the monitor, the monitor has a tidy, trim appearance
and does not prevent me from feeling proud of how my computer looks.

I recommend these home modifications to almost everybody.

The way the flame retardants get into the human body, by the way, is by
attaching to dust, which gets ingested in small amounts. Consequently, after
removal and disposal of the housing, I recommend cleaning the area under and
around the device.

Or get a recent Apple monitor, which has an aluminum housing.

------
tokenadult
Another top-level comment wrote:

 _between this and the article about brain parasites in california, HN is
scaring the crap out of me_

And I guess that's why my all-time favorite external link to share here on
Hacker News is "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation"

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

by Peter Norvig, Google's director of research. To resolve the issue of the
safety trade-offs of not treating furniture with flame-retardant chemicals
(the status quo when I was a child) and treating it (the status quo for quite
a while now in the United States) will take careful examination of the actual
risk ratios of any disease said to be correlated with the chemicals, the risk
ratios of injuries and deaths from fires, the cost of other preventive
measures for each kind of harm, and so on. Public policy is not easy. The best
public policies have to be carefully examined in light of verifiable facts.

I see from user danso's profile

<http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=danso>

that he has a professional role in investigative journalism, and indeed I have
enjoyed reading (and of course have upvoted) many of his comments here on HN
over the past year. The piece submitted here mentions about its author that
"Dashka Slater is the author of six books for children and adults. Her latest
children’s book, 'Dangerously Ever After,' is out this month," which prompted
me to look up other information about the author. Her personal website

<http://www.dashkaslater.com/index.php/journalist>

declares that she has written pieces for a variety of publications, many in
the "alternative" market for periodical articles, and her LinkedIn profile

<https://www.linkedin.com/in/dashkaslater>

declares her educational background. There is some interesting reporting here,
but as a regular reader of Mother Jones (one of the publications that most
often publishes her work) and of other "alternative" publications, I would
like to see more follow-up on this issue before writing to my elected
representatives, as I sometimes do, asking for a change in current law. I do
remember when newspaper and magazine articles in my childhood were all about
the fearsome dangers of fires killing little children.

A recent submission to HN based on very reliable statistics pointed out that
life expectancy in the United States at birth, at age 40, at age 60, at age
65, and even at age 80 has been steadily RISING

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=longevity-w...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=longevity-
why-we-die-global-life-expectancy)

since 1960, so new regulations introduced since then so far don't seem to have
net harm for the population in balance with all other social and environmental
changes since then. Perhaps the purported flame-retardant chemicals don't
prevent as many fires as people suppose. But perhaps they also don't cause any
serious human illness in actual use. Let's not rush to judgment on this issue,
but let's do actual, verifiable science that with sound economic and policy
analysis can help guide lawmakers to the best currently available trade-off in
regulation.

~~~
pmorici
I think the thing that is reflexively offensive about this whole thing is that
the government has taken a risk that is reasonably easy for a responsible
adult to avoid (setting their couch on fire) and implemented a measure that is
harmful and difficult or almost impossible to avoid. It's as if we are all
made to pay for the morons who can't resist playing with matches in their
couch.

~~~
tptacek
It is not particularly easy to avoid setting your couch on fire. The problem
with flaming couches is not just those cases where the couch is the primary
contributor to the fire; it's also the cases where couches rapidly accelerate
the intensity of a smaller fire, like from an electrical malfunction.

~~~
pmorici
The regulation says, "the foam inside upholstered furniture be able to
withstand exposure to a small flame, like a candle or cigarette lighter, for
12 seconds without igniting." so if a fire has already started and it is
bigger than a small flame then this regulation isn't meant to help with that.
In fact if you look around you can find
[http://laurasrules.org/2012/04/15/sofa-saga-
part-3-interview...](http://laurasrules.org/2012/04/15/sofa-saga-
part-3-interview-with-flame-retardants-expert-heather-stapleton/) people
talking about studies that show that in a actual fire these chemicals only
slow down the burn rate by a couple seconds.

------
WalterBright
The single best way to protect your home against fire, by far, is to have a
fire sprinkler system installed. Unfortunately, this can only be done when the
house is built. So if you are planning on building a house, specify a
sprinkler system.

It'll be the best money you ever spent.

~~~
rdl
Why can't you retrofit fire suppressing foam in the kitchen, like one does in
a commercial kitchen range hood? I've seen this done on kitchen remodels.
There are residential range hoods (Viking, Wolf, ...) which have a wall-
mounted button or a pull which 1) kills the fuel source and 2) smothers the
range area with fire suppression (class BC or K) to put out the fire and
prevent re-ignition. Totally ruins your food AND needs to be cleaned off
promptly since it's corrosive.

Kitchens are by far the most likely source of domestic fires.

~~~
_delirium
> Kitchens are by far the most likely source of domestic fires.

Interesting; I would've guessed it'd be in closer running with other causes,
but it looks like they constitute around 55% of total residential fires.
According to some U.S. statistics from 2010 [1], the leading causes of
residential fires are cooking, with 166k fires, followed by heating at 47k
fires, electrical and "other unintentional" at ~25k each, and open flame and
"intentional" at just under 20k each.

[1]
[http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/res_bldg_f...](http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/res_bldg_fire_causes.pdf)

------
reirob
When reading the title I thought the article will be about how dangerous the
couch is for our generation, because we are spending more and more time on it
and so do not exercise enough our body, etc. You know, related to Tablet
devices and Internet which allow more and more entertainment from the couch.

Was quite surprised it is about another type of danger. I guess I am too much
on portable devices and on the couch ;)

------
dromidas
>The baby’s mother had placed a candle in her crib, he said, and the candle
fell over, igniting a pillow.

I'm pretty sure the baby's mother didn't deserve to be the mother of anyone.
Either that or she spent too much time sniffing her own couch and it lowered
her IQ enough to put a CANDLE IN A FREAKING CRIB WITH A BABY.

------
thejefflarson
The Chicago Tribune has a good series about how Big Tobacco and chemical
companies have pushed for more flame retardants in everything despite health
concerns:

<http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html>

------
abdelmaalik
just in case your couch is dangerous:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcJkhSUSnek>

10 seconds that can mushroom into a lot of wasted time, you've been warned.

------
hastur
Vote for Mitt Romney, he'll scale back the EPA and you'll be able to wallow in
carcinogenic substances all day long.

~~~
newbie12
What is the EPA doing about it right now? You'd be surprised to learn that
many U.S. environmental laws were passed by Republican presidents. There's a
"Nixon-goes-to-China" aspect to it. Indeed, Nixon created the EPA...

