
Who's afraid of bromine? - suprgeek
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29376436
======
x0x0
This article is an industry puff piece. The author writes

    
    
       This highlights an unavoidable problem for the chemicals industry - much of 
       what they do is still a learning process, and it often takes many years for 
       the long-term risks inherent in a particular product to emerge. Yet it is 
       also important to get these risks in perspective. So far, there are no known 
       cases of brominated fire retardants actually causing anyone major health 
       problems - they are being banned because of the potential hazard they pose.
    

Well, yes -- you have to basically be an idiot to take a bioaccumulative
lipophilic chemical that, after all, is unnecessary (we can still build flame-
retardant materials without them, and somehow pepsi still makes pepsi) and use
them without incredibly thorough health testing. We know some of these flame
retardants disrupt thyroid hormones and may impair neurodevelopment. The risks
outweigh the benefits, and I decline to be in the experiment pool.

~~~
tjradcliffe
The difficulties with this position are at least two-fold.

First, you claim that the use of bominated fire retardants is "unnecessary"
because we can build flame-retardant materials without them, but the problem
they are solving is not "building flame retardant materials" but "building
flame retardant materials under some very specific constraints of cost,
longevity, storage, transport, manufacturability of the product they are used
in, etc". People who have never actually manufactured anything are often given
to under-estimating the number of constraints on the process and airly wave
away the issues faced by the people tasked with doing so (a common name for
such people is "senior managers").

How good are the alternative flame retardants? Do they cost more, increasing
price pressure and causing people to not replace their old electronics with
new for a longer period of time, therefore actually increasing overall
population risk? How do you calculate all that?

Second, "the risks outweigh the benefits" leaves unanswered the question "to
whom"? The distribution of risks and benefits is not uniform. Replacing one
product with another may well shift the risks and benefits, but can you tell
me that we won't be having this conversation again a few decades from now, as
the unexpected consequences of what you currently believe to be safer (not
"safe" but "safer") alternatives become clear?

What is obvious to you is clearly not obvious to others (many of whom also
have interests in the matter that might cloud their judgement, although of
course the same is true of NGOs, which are in general even less science-based
than industry risk-analysts.) This is why in any regulatory question of this
kind treating the decision as a no-brainer and your opponents as the root of
all evil is likely to be counter-productive. A better approach is to
acknowledge a) the legitimacy of their concerns, including their concern about
making a profit and b) bring up concrete, specific and detailed ways that the
industrial processes in question could be improved. It's easy to think of
abstract improvements that won't work.

The debate regarding ozone processing in the pulp and paper industry is a good
example of how abstract claims that ozone was a perfect substitute for
chlorine if only those evil capitalist industry dunderheads would come to
Jesus turned out to be less than entirely true: ozone does have potential and
is being used, but in practice turns out so far to be a less-than-complete
replacement for chlorine bleaching:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleaching_of_wood_pulp#Ozone](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleaching_of_wood_pulp#Ozone)

------
fabian2k
Bromine, bromide and brominated organic compounds are all completely different
chemicals. Like chlorine gas (Cl2) and the chloride ion in table salt (NaCl),
they behave completely different.

Even with the brominated organic chemicals, each one can behave differently.
Very subtle differences in organic molecules can lead to drastically different
behaviour. Lumping all those compounds together doesn't make much sense, they
have to be evaluated individually (or in closely-related groups).

------
SonicMoon
I once had to travel with a vial of bromine. Besides sealing it up pretty
tight. I had a plan if I was caught getting on the plane - tell them it was
cow's blood, which shouldn't be very terrorizing. If I was caught getting off
the plane I'd tell them it was bromine because cow's blood would be disallowed
by customs.

~~~
Danieru
Personally the story behind why you need to travel with it sounds interesting,
are you allowed to share?

------
andrey-p
> A fire is a self-perpetuating chemical reaction in which the high
> temperature encourages fuel to combine with oxygen in the air, further
> raising the temperature in the process.

Kinda OT but this sentence finally cleared up for me how burning works.

------
ens
x0x0 and Htsthbjig are right, this is an industry puff piece. In a previous
job I researched brominated flame retardants and it is well documented that
they cause developmental disruptions, cancer, and reproductive toxicity. One
of the main dangers is that they are not chemically bonded to the plastic and
foam that they are added to, like in your couch cushions. This means they get
into dust, which is particularly a hazard for babies crawling on the floor.

The laws are also outdated and not very practical- in California, which has
some of the most rigorous regulations on environmental health, the test for a
flame retardant cushion is to hold a candle to a piece of foam for 12 seconds.

The Chicago Tribune did a series on the tobacco industry's role in getting
brominated flame retardants into furniture, which I recommend reading for some
context on the current US regulations:
[http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html](http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html)

Edited to add links to some studies:
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866688/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866688/)
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3569691/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3569691/)
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3349420/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3349420/)

------
buddylw
The main point to take away from this is that very few things can be said to
be all bad or all good in chemistry. The dose makes the poison.

~~~
andreasvc
That is a trite truism which does not illuminate anything. The main problem is
that unlike for food, there are no regulations in place requiring chemicals in
products to be proven safe for humans. What happens is that decades after a
chemical has been introduced, concerns might be raised, and the industry
launches a big PR campaign to try to cover up the findings (I believe this
very article is an instance of this).

~~~
tjradcliffe
I would actually say that the main problem is that the sentence "The main
problem is that unlike for food, there are no regulations in place requiring
chemicals in products to be proven safe for humans" is incoherent.

The very concept of "chemicals in products" that are made out of chemicals and
nothing but chemicals makes no sense. Food is either safe, or it is not.
Insisting we test "chemicals" rather than "foods" is like insisting we test
"cows" rather than "beef".

That is: beef as it is delivered to you in the store contains both
industrially manufactured, extremely complex, highly artificial, poorly
quality-controlled cows, and a few simple, refined, relatively pure
substances. Calling out the latter as "poisonous" (which everything is in some
dose under some circumstances) while ignoring that cows, world-wide, kill
hundreds of people every year makes no sense.

Or rather: it makes no sense to be concerned that a steak will be deadly
because it contains a constituent (cow) that is deadly.

I'm not against testing of foods as they come out of the factory--and I agree
that people in industry, like people in government and people in labour unions
and people pretty much everywhere are not above lying to make something that
is unacceptably dangerous to most people appear acceptably safe--but I am
against this kind of focus on constituents that are completely unrelated to
the form they are found in foods, be they a pure chemical like bromine or an
animal species like cows.

It makes no more sense to be concerned about bromine in foods than it does to
be concerned about cows in food. It does make sense to be concerned about food
safety, but looking at the components of the constituents tells us nothing
about food safety, so as soon as you seen someone wringing their hands about
"bromine" rather than the specific bromine compound in the specific quantities
used in a specific food product, you know they don't care about food safety.

~~~
andreasvc
Your reasoning seems quite confused, and you do not present any support
whatsoever for the accusation that my claim is incoherent. You seem to be
arguing against they very idea of reductionism, that we cannot isolate
compounds that are harmful from what they are part of ("foods" in your
example). There are countless cases where we have done this; quicksilver,
lead, and other heavy metals come to mind, lots of carcinogenic substances &c.
&c.

> Or rather: it makes no sense to be concerned that a steak will be deadly
> because it contains a constituent (cow) that is deadly.

It makes a lot of sense. If a cow has been fed with food that was contaminated
with a carcinogenic substance, the resulting beef will be unsafe.

Your comment focuses on food safety, but my main point was to stress that food
safety is already regulated thoroughly, while the use of chemicals such as
discussed in the article is not regulated at all.

------
notastartup
Once in my second year chemistry lab, we were doing a final lab exam and there
was this stuff in a brown flask labelled bromide. Normally you waft the smell
of chemicals as part of the evaluation. I ALMOST wafted bromide until I asked
if it was okay and the instructor said DO NOT DO IT. I immediately changed
majors.

~~~
anigbrowl
Smart move. I know someone who wasn't as forward-thinking as you and ended up
with a massively attenuated sense of smell.

~~~
notastartup
that's not all...so many incidents. broke beakers a couple of times,
accidentally unscrewed someone's wind blowing rubber tube (after you cleaned
beakers with buckets of acetone) that started to dance like a headless worm
destroying someone's work, my curiosity destroyed someone's yield that took
several hours of careful process because I thought it looked so 'cool', dipped
my hand in some nasty shit that supposedly carcinogenic and then told to just
wash it out with soap, destroyed a dozen thermometer, overheated solution that
boiled and caused smoke, broke a piece of glass we were heating that landed on
a partner's arm, all for a fucking yield at the end that determined what grade
we were going to get on the bell curve.

The lab assistants and instructors were also not very friendly or happy
people. Says to ask for help but doesn't like to answer questions or help. We
would start our lab sessions after lunch and come out when it was dark, rainy
and foggy (typical Vancouver weather) out on to a campus that prided in
brutalist architecture straight out of concentration camps.

I still shudder at those years of trying to be a molecular biochemist.
Clearly, I was not fit for it in the labs or the lectures.

Then I switched to Economics and couldn't believe how easier school got. So
infinitely easier...

------
InfiniteRand
How could bromine be a bad thing? It has "bro" right in the name!

------
Htsthbjig
"The bromine industry has not done a very good job in PR, in educating people
that there are chemicals there that save your life and keep you safe."

I feel bad for the BBC because this article is a big pile of PR with jewels
like:

"The chemistry blogger Derek Lowe points out that the few people known to have
suffered health problems (none of which were quite like those listed by
Buzzfeed) were drinking a vast amount of BVO-containing drinks - in the order
of two to four litres per day."

So the culprit is in the person for drinking TOO MUCH!! 2 litters per day is a
bast amount while also the recommended amount for a person to drink on a day.
If you play sports like tennis or soccer or American football you are going to
drink two or three times more than this.

Never mind that athletes are the intended segment of drinks like gatorate.

I am watching TV and it starts burning? This is the reason I use Apple
aluminum displays, I don't want brominated sh*t near me. Unfortunately this
lobby forced mattresses and quilts to use it and now you could detect those
traces in the air of any normal bedroom. There are appearing lots of
neurological disorders that are strongly linked to those products getting in
contact with our body, as they are easily absorbed by our skin as well as our
lungs.

The problem with those lobbies is that they don't let us decide. I don't care
if my TV weights more or cost more(injection molded plastic is way cheaper), I
want a metal frame. Nobody in my family smokes so let me choose foams and
feather products that are brome free.

The excuse they use in order to force everybody to use those products is that
most people have smokers in their house and they go to bed with the cigarette,
so they are asleep while the house burns so they need to protect you.

Turns out that protecting us against ourselves is a great business. It is a
pity that a theoretically independent medium like BBC takes part on it:

[http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

~~~
6581
> 2 litters per day is a bast amount while also the recommended amount for a
> person to drink on a day.

Who recommends drinking 2 liters of soft drinks per day?

~~~
PaulAJ
To be clear, 2 litres per day is the amount of water you are supposed to
consume, including all the water in your food. Obviously anyone working out is
going to need more to compensate for sweating.

Anyone drinking 2 or more litres of soft drink per day is going to need a lot
of dentistry, for starters.

~~~
pessimizer
Of course, that doesn't mean that tens of millions of people don't do it every
single day.

------
mlichtenstern
I am; they've added it to our enriched flour breads since the 80's and it
blocks iodine receptors. Look up iodine deficiency, said to affect 70% of
Americans, and this is alarming. The deficiency has been linked to thyroid
problems and cancer, especially breast and prostate cancer, as iodine helps
regulate hormones. I have NO trust for our "food system" or "safety
regulators." It's all about how to make a buck. You can hardly find any food
without unnecessary and harmful additives. Soy lecithin - an allergen is
everywhere as is whey (dairy - why do I need this in my chicken apple
sausage??), maltodextrin (gluten), MSG (migraine central). It's pitiful. Yes;
bromine is one of many scary elements we over-use.

~~~
jandrewrogers
I am only responding to this to point out that your post is completely
inconsistent with elementary chemistry and biomedical science, lest someone
else actually take it seriously.

Fact: Bromine is an essential element in mammalian biology. We _need_ to
consume it.

Fact: Bromine does not preferentially crowd out iodine. It does tend to
concentrate in the same tissues as iodine for the obvious chemistry reason but
it does not materially impede iodine absorption. Which has actually been
measured in mammals in biomedical studies.

Fact: Some populations, like the Japanese, consume relatively huge quantities
of bromine from natural dietary sources while still having (modestly) lower
levels of thyroid disease than cultures that consume much less. This is an
expected demographic result given the aforementioned biomedical research that
would predict this, given that bromine does not crowd out iodine.

If we biologically require both iodine and bromine, which we do, it is pretty
reasonable to assume that evolution makes sure the ions get to where they need
to go. Human biology is full of superficially conflicting ion requirements:
iodine and bromine, sodium and potassium, calcium and magnesium, etc.

As an added bonus, ions like bromine (and iodine) tend to be promptly excreted
if you consume more than your body actually requires, so they don't stay in
your system long in any case if they are not serving a purpose. There is
nothing intrinsically dangerous about bromine.

~~~
mlichtenstern
"Bromine has no necessary function in the body. Substantial exposure to it can
cause iodine deficiency, which will ultimately wreak havoc with the thyroid
and every tissue in the body."

[http://www.bodybio.com/content.aspx?page=bromine-bullies-
iod...](http://www.bodybio.com/content.aspx?page=bromine-bullies-iodine)

~~~
shabble
There is a recent paper suggesting it may in fact be essential as a trace
element:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24906154](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24906154)

Although exactly where modern diet/exposure lies on the necessary/harm
spectrum is substantially different question.

