Could it be that the State can not interfere with federal contracts?
Federal or no, Boing is motivated by profit, and as such should be shut down by the State.
Maybe Boeing's employees (the Unions) wanted it that way.
@1 - no, next thing you know you'll be admitting the City can suck wind if the State wants to rebuild the Viaduct.
Which is the facts, jacks.
You are right, let's piss off Boeing some more. We don't want their jobs in our state anyway. Hell, let's tell Microsoft to go screw themselves too.
What planet are you living on????
this was more than a little knee-jerk.
It seems to me that they wanted to ban them for HOME use, like where those kids are that you're worried about, but not for industrial use, which follows different rules.
Also, I don't really care if flame-retardent stuff on an airplane will give me cancer. I'd rather the plane not burn down.
This is one of those moments that Josh needs to take a deep breathe and drink a bourbon. Wait, no... bourbon contains ethyl alcohol... please follow proper precautions!
The MSDS states that you're favorite drink contains chemicals that are:
R11 Highly flammable.
R20 Harmful by inhalation.
R21 Harmful in contact with skin.
R22 Harmful if swallowed.
R36 Irritating to eyes.
R37 Irritating to respiratory system.
R38 Irritating to skin.
R40 Limited evidence of a carcinogenic effect.
You're reading it right; these exemptions are for Boeing. This is both an acknowledgement of the difficulty of banning a substance used in airplanes (because federal aviation safety regulations trump state action- PBDEs are used in the housing of the airplane escape chutes), and of Boeing's political power in Olympia. The Association of Washington Business hates this bill. Therefore, neutralizing their biggest member, who would have otherwise gone around screaming about air crash victims, was pretty much essential.
It's still a good bill. It will get the overwhelming majority of these toxics out of the product stream and, therefore, out of household dust, people's food supply, and mommy's breastmilk. That AWB still hates the bill must mean we're doing something right.
"It seems to me that they wanted to ban them for HOME use, like where those kids are that you're worried about, but not for industrial use, which follows different rules."
It seems to me that you know fuck-all about PBDE contamination specifically and flame retardants and industrial regulations in general, and perhaps should consider modifying your posting behavior on the topic accordingly.
Hey #10! If you know so much about PBDEs, why don't you enlighten the rest of us? Posts like yours don't add much to the discussion.
Right... Because the last thing we want is fire-proof materials in homes where children live... That would take all the fun out of a good house fire!
(Its so fun to watch those little ones burn.)
The FAA has stringent flammability requirements for everything that goes into an airplane. This means that almost all non-metal parts have some kind of flame retardant applied to allow them to meet the requirement. The reason is pretty obvious - they want to make sure that if a fire starts it won't be able to spread quickly through the aircraft.
If the PDBEs were banned, you'd be looking at an all-metal interior - no seat cushions, seat covers, stowage bins, etc. i.e., not too comfortable
I know wikipedia isn't necessarily factual or up to date, but could someone point out where its article on PBDEs is lacking?
From what's there, I can't muster any more angst against PBDEs than Hexachloraphene or aluminum...
Hey, You Gotta Be Kidding Me:
This class of flame retardants was long ago banned from use in children's pajamas, but children's pajamas are still made of flame retardant materials. That's because safe alternatives exist. And, that's why the firefighter's union, the state fire marshall and the state fire chiefs association all endorse the ban on PBDE bill. Flame retardants will still be used, just not bromide flame retardants.
Fmr boeing engineer: the FAA standards are a big part of why we would not be able to extend the ban to aircraft manufacturers, but I believe that use of PBDEs in airplanes is much more limited than you infer. I believe that the alternative flame retardants are used in most of the components you mention above.
Comments against exemptions for the PBDE bill actually sound eerily close to some of the argumets the bromine industry is pitching to newspapers to get them to oppose the bill -- if you exempt anything, why bother?
The bill actually aims to address products -- electronics, mattresses, furnishings --where the highest volume of toxic flame retardants are used, and where our children are exposed. Safer, equally effective alternatives are available ensuring fire protection. Children are the most vulnerable population to these exposures, and removing decaBDE from these products would make a vast difference in protecting them from continued toxic exposures.
As a parent, I think this bill takes a critical step forward in reducing PBDE levels in our bodies, homes and environment.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).