|
“EPA has identified health concerns for
reproductive and blood toxicity based on data on structurally similar
borons. … EPA has determined, however, that manufacture, process,
or use of the substance without dermal protection may result in
serious chronic and developmental effects. Also, based on analogy to
boron, EPA is concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at
a concentration as low as 300 ppb of the PMN substance in surface
waters.”
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/snur28.pdf
“REPRODUCTIVE TOXICANTS
Boric acid (CAS No. 10043-35-3); Tetraborate and its salts,
including sodium borate
Male reproductive toxicity has been manifested as
testicular atrophy and adverse effects on sperm production.
Female reproductive toxicity has been
manifested as decreased numbers of litters produced, and decreased
numbers of corpora lutea.
Developmental toxicity has been manifested as
reduced viability, reduced fetal weights, and an increase in the
frequency of morphological variations.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA,
1993a and 1993b) concluded that: "In chronic oncogenicity studies using
mice, rats and beagle dogs, boric acid and borax were found not to be
carcinogenic; however, testicular effects and decreases in body weight
resulted at high dose levels." "In reproductive and developmental
toxicity studies using rats, mice, and rabbits, maternal liver and
kidney effects and decreased weight gain as well as decreased fetal body
weights were observed. In two studies, at the highest dose levels, no
litters were produced. Prenatal mortality occurred at the highest dose
levels in the rabbit study." The numbers of corpora lutea were found to
be decreased in a multi-generation study conducted in rats, indicating a
decreased frequency of ovulation. When treated female rats were mated
with control males, there was a decrease in the number of litters
produced, and pup survival was compromised.”
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR...referenced_docs/abpkg5rb.html
“Chronic dermal exposure to boron in neonates was
fatal (Litovitz et al. 1988).”
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp26-c2.pdf
“Women exposed during early pregnancy to chemicals
such as cockroach and ant insecticides for one month in the home
environment were found to have a70% raised risk for stillbirths due to
congenital defects,” the researchers conclude. (Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 1997;54:511-518)”
“Animal studies demonstrated that boron can cause
injury after intermediate and chronic exposure to the gonads in animals,
especially the testes. (Seal and Weeth 1980)”
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp26-c2.pdf
“Oral studies in animals demonstrated injury to the
gonads and to the developing fetus. (NIEHS 1990a; NTP 1987; Weir and
Fisher 1972).”
“Chronic inhalation exposure caused irritation of
the upper respiratory tract (Garabrant et al. 1984, 1985).”
“Boron does cause health effects following acute
dermal exposure.”
There is one human study that showed reproductive
damage with a sample size of 28 men. (Tarasenko et al. 1972)
“Death. Human studies have shown that boron
can be lethal following short-term exposure. The minimal lethal dose of
ingested boron (as boric acid) was reported to be 2-3 g in infants, 5-6
g in children and 15-20 g in adults (Locatelli et al. 1987; Wong et al.
1964).”
The above quotes come largely from The Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) a division of the Center
for Disease Control (CDC) published report called ‘Health Effects’ that
reviews all the known science on Boric Acid. Please see the entire 36
page report at:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp26-c2.pdf Below are quotes
from the conclusions of this document:
- “Demonstrated injury to the gonads and to the
developing fetus. …
- Boron (as boron oxide and boric acid dusts)
has been shown to cause irritation of the upper respiratory tract in
humans. …
- Boron does cause health effects following
acute dermal exposure. …
- Neonatal children are unusually susceptible to
boron exposure. …
- Neurological damage is an area of concern
following exposure to boron …
- In spite of the absence of reliable human
data, limited evidence of reproductive effects in animals suggest
that reproductive toxicity may be an area of concern following boron
exposure in humans.”
We know the most about Boric Acid from numerous
human and animal studies that cover not only ingestion, but also
inhalation, skin contact, and genital contact. All these studies show
serious risks for humans. Our government gives us strong warnings
about Boric Acid chronic exposure risks with the greatest risks being
neurological, and reproductive damage.
Studies with dogs showed genital contact with Boric
Acid attacked, damaged, and shrunk the gonads.
“Studies in humans, particularly infants, show that
boron (as boric acid) can be lethal following ingestion. Infants who
ingested formula accidentally prepared with 2.5% aqueous solution of
boric acid died within 3 days after exposure (Wong et al. 1964). … 5 of
11 infants died … Degenerative changes were seen in the liver, kidney,
and brain.”
“One study was reported involving occupational
exposure (10 years or greater) to boron aerosols (22-80 mg/m3) in males
engaged in the production of boric acids (Tarasenko et al. 1972). The
study group was small, consisting of 28 men. Low sperm counts, reduced
sperm motility and elevated fructose content of seminal fluids were
observed.”
“Dogs were fed 29 mg boron/kg/day as borax and
boric acid (1,170 ppm), respectively in the diet for 38 weeks (Weir and
Fisher 1972). Testicular atrophy and spermatogenic arrest were reported.
Reproductive effects were reported in rats following chronic exposure.
In rats fed up to 58.5 mg boron/kg/day (as borax or boric acid) for
several generations, there was a lack of viable sperm in atrophied
testes and ovulation decreased in females (Weir and Fisher 1972).”
“Boric acid was detected in urine of patients 23
days after a single ingestion (Wang et al. 1964).”
“In animals, prenatal exposure of mice (79 mg
boron/kg/day as boric acid) and rats (13.6 mg boron/kg/day as boric
acid) during gestation days 0-17 and 0-20 caused developmental effects
consisting of reduced fetal body weight or minor skeletal changes and
possibly delay in maturation (Heindel et al. 1991). There was
degeneration of the seminiferous tubules and impaired spermatogenesis in
mice exposed to dose levels of 111 mg boron/kg/day as boric acid for 2
generations (NIEHS 1990).”
Boric Acid is absorbed through skin contact,
particularly damaged skin, and inhalation. Quoting the federally
required Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Boric Acid (H3BO3):
“Potential Health Effects
----------------------------------
Inhalation:
Causes irritation to the mucous membranes of the respiratory tract. May
be absorbed from the mucous membranes, and depending on the amount of
exposure could result in the development of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea,
drowsiness, rash, headache, fall in body temperature, low blood
pressure, renal injury, cyanosis, coma, and death.
Ingestion:
Symptoms parallel absorption via inhalation. Adult fatal dose reported
at 5 to > 30 grams.
Skin Contact:
Causes skin irritation. Not significantly absorbed through the intact
skin. Readily absorbed through damaged or burned skin. Symptoms of skin
absorption parallel inhalation and ingestion.
Eye Contact:
Causes irritation, redness, and pain.
Chronic Exposure:
Prolonged absorption causes weight loss, vomiting, diarrhea, skin rash,
convulsions and anemia. Liver and particularly the kidneys may be
susceptible. Studies of dogs and rats have shown that infertility and
damage to testes can result from acute or chronic ingestion of boric
acid. Evidence of toxic effects on the human reproductive system is
inadequate.
Aggravation of Pre-existing Conditions:
Persons with pre-existing skin disorders or eye problems, or impaired
liver, kidney or respiratory function may be more susceptible to the
effects of the substance.”
See full MSDS:
www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/b3696.htm or
http://www.rosemill.com/html/msds/chem_boric_acid_msds.pdf
“Maternal exposure to workplace or household
pesticides in early pregnancy increases the risk for stillbirths, The
study authors discovered that one month of maternal exposure to
workplace pesticides during the first two months of pregnancy resulted
in a 2.4 times increased risk for stillbirth due to congenital defects,
compared with mothers with no such exposure. Pregnant women with
one-month workplace pesticide exposures during their first trimester
(three months) also faced a 70% raised risk for stillbirths due to
placental, cord, and membrane complications
Home exposure was by far the most common site for
maternal pesticide exposure Women exposed during early pregnancy to
chemicals such as cockroach and ant insecticides for one month in the
home environment were found to have a 70% raised risk for stillbirths
due to congenital defects, the researchers conclude. Occupational and
Environmental Medicine (1997;54:511-518)”
http://www.mercola.com/1997/archive/stillbirths.htm
“Exposure to pesticides, especially
during early pregnancy, had a clear positive association with
stillbirths regardless of cause of death.”
http://oem.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/54/7/511
“The National Academy of Sciences reports that
children may be uniquely sensitive to chemicals and pesticide residues
because of their rapid tissue growth and development.”
“Effects can be subtle and can show up decades or
generations after exposure, so it is difficult to prove an immediate
cause and effect. The best way to minimize pesticide risks is to avoid
use in the first place. Follow the example of the National PTA, which
has endorsed minimizing children's exposure to toxic agents.”
“Other adverse effects that do not include any
immediate symptoms of illness can occur when smaller amounts of boron
are used on a regular basis. These injuries are not as well known but
involve stunted growth (in experimental animals) and infertility in
human beings.”“Boric acid is cited as one of the pesticides/fungicides
that can induce adverse skin reactions such as contact dermatitis and
hyperkeratosis with dermal contact of treated surfaces.”
“Pesticide poisoning is a commonly under-diagnosed
illness. Health care providers generally receive a limited amount of
training in occupational and environmental health, especially in
pesticide-related illnesses.”
“Alopecia [Hair Loss] was completely reversed by
elimination or reduction of exposure to boron-containing materials in
all 3 patients. We conclude that occupational topical exposure to boron
in solutions may cause reversible alopecia.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.....d&list_uids=11260532&dopt=Abstract
Dr. Liberman made the following statement:
“We live in a very technologically advanced world, which
advocates the advantages of these technologies but rarely ever considers
the disadvantages or potential harm. Everything in life must be
considered on a cost/effectiveness ratio basis.
It seems ill advised to expose hundreds of millions of people to a
potential health hazard in order to protect a very few. …. I am
absolutely opposed to adding the proposed toxic chemicals to mattresses.
I render my opinion based on my education, training and experience in
the field of occupational and environmental medicine.”
Sincerely,
Allan D. Lieberman, MD
Consultant in Occupational and Environmental Medicine”
ALLAN D. LIBERMAN, M.D., F.A.A.E.M.
Diplomate, American Board of Environmental Medicine
Member, American College of Occupational
& Environmental Medicine |
CENTER FOR OCCUPATIONAL &
ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE, P.A.
7510 NORTHFOREST DRIVE,
N. CHARLESTON, SC. 29420-4297
Phone 843-572-1600 / Fax 843-572-1795
Website:
www.coem.com E-mail:
allanl@coem.com |
Dr. Rapp made the following statement:
What can we do to stop the nonsense!!! “
Doris J. Rapp, MD, F.A.A.A., F.A.A.P. Is a board-certified
environmental medical specialist and pediatric allergist. She was a
clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the State University of
New York at Buffalo. Dr. Rapp is the founder of the Practical
Allergy Foundation and is a past President of the American Academy of
Environmental Medicine. She is also the author of several books.
Fax 716-875-5399 • Website:
www.drrapp.com Email
drrappmd@aol.com
These respected Doctors oppose not only Boric Acid,
but also any chemical that is known to be toxic. They also oppose any
new flame retardant chemical to be put in our mattresses that have not
been thoroughly tested for human toxicity for use in this application.
As a Mattress Manufacturer who has been in
business for thirty years I began investigating what is required to meet
a new law where mattresses must pass open flame ignition tests. At first
I was concerned because we have not had a good history with trying to
make things fireproof. We have created nightmares with Asbestos and
Flame Retardant Chemicals. PCB FRC’s were banned in 1976 after much
human and environmental damage that continues to this day. PBDE’s were
found in women’s breast milk in 2003. In 2004 we find still another FRC
that should be banned. As I investigate the chemicals required to be
used in mattresses under this fire standard I become more and more
alarmed. They create a health risk that could be catastrophic.
Even though an existing 1973 federal law requires
mattresses not ignite from cigarettes burning all the way down -- A new
law will require mattresses to also resist open flame ignition. This new
law has been called “the toughest fire standard, of any kind, ever.” The
test method requires mattresses to withstand a large flame from a
propane torch for about a minute and then not ignite for 30 to 60
minutes. To meet this standard mattresses must be completely encased in
a thick fire barrier fabric just under the outer ticking. This fire
barrier requires a large amount of flame retardant chemicals to pass
this test. Mattress manufacturers are free to meet this standard with
any chemicals they choose. The chemicals used will be Modacrylics
(acrylic fibers modified by the addition of Metal Oxide flame retardant
chemicals) and Boric Acid (a flame retardant that is also a poisonous
pesticide and known toxin). The most cost effective and widely used
solution is and will be cotton batting with a large amount of Boric Acid
added. Boric Acid is not chemically bound and exists as loose dust mixed
with the cotton fibers.
According to USA Today, “Though the USA has the
world's toughest flame retardancy standards, 3,000 people die in fires
each year. The Chemical Manufacturers Association estimates the number
would be up to 960 higher without the [1.2 Billion pounds of]
flame-retardant chemicals we now use [annually]. (2) “From
1980 to 1998, bedroom fires dropped 68 percent and their related deaths
by 52 percent, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Why? -- A standard that was enacted in 1973 that prevents mattress
ignition from cigarettes. Do we need more regulation?
We all want to save lives. Does the risk outweigh
the benefit? Proponents of the new regulation want to reduce open flame
ignition of mattresses by requiring a thick chemically saturated fire
suit on every mattress. This has been called ‘the toughest new fire
standard ever.’ ISPA (International Sleep Products Association)
estimates some 300 people die from open flame ignition of mattresses
each year. Are 10% of the fire deaths a high estimate? They also
estimate up to one third, or 100 people might be saved by this new law,
after twenty or more years, when all existing mattresses are replaced --
A best estimate gain of five lives per year. These estimates are
debatable. In a fire toxic gasses from the new FRC’s might kill more
than they save. Of course 100, 5, or even one life are hugely important.
But there is also an associated risk. We will test hundreds of millions
of people, our entire population, with chronic exposure to these
chemicals. What if, we find years from now that the lawyers get rich
again and we have sterilized, harmed, or killed massive amounts of
people? Is the benefit worth the risk?
The innerspring mattress industry generally
supports this law. ISPA (International Sleep Products Association) went
to the CPSC (Consumer Products Safety Commission) and asked that this
new fire law be established nationwide. From reading ISPA’s web site it
appears they also started and supported the law in California. Why would
an industry group ask for more government regulation? Perhaps their
interests are pure and they are only concerned about public safety. Or,
do they have other reasons that serve their self-interest? The
innerspring mattress industry has seen their market share decline as
specialty, newer technology, beds have recently grown to over twenty to
thirty percent of the market. It might be easier and less costly to
protect metal wire coil spring mattresses from fire than it is for other
types of mattresses such as Visco-Elastic, Foam, Air, or Latex
mattresses. Are they thinking that testing costs to comply will drive
many of their smaller competitors out of business? Are they thinking
that since everyone’s costs and prices will go up that they will earn
more revenue and profit on the same number of unit sales? Do they see
this as a win-win-win for themselves that keeps people sleeping on metal
wire innerspring mattresses that were invented in 1871, increases
profits, and squashes specialty and smaller competition? As Doctor Rapp
said: “Follow the money trail to see the real reason for this law.”
Could Dr. Doris Rapp be right?
ISPA (International Sleep Products Association) has
been pushing hard to get this new law enacted and tries to obscure that
manufacturers use Flame Retardant Chemicals. See their website:
http://www.sleepproducts.org/.../FAQs.htm See Item 24, paragraph 2:
They tell us they don’t use flame retardant chemicals, but inherently
flame retardant fibers and mention para-aramids, melamines, and
modacrylics. This is a clever play on words because these technical
names are Flame Retardant Chemicals. Para-aramids appear to be Kevlar
and is used in the thread to hold the fire barrier together. Melamine is
a flame retardant chemical, Melamine is toxic, gives sore throat,
coughing, eye irritant pain, and there is a risk of formation of stones
in the urinary bladder.
Modacrylics are modified acrylic fibers. The
brochure and web site from the only North American Modacrylic fiber
supplier, tells us they modify acrylic fiber by adding a Metal Oxide
flame retardant chemical.
http://www.sefmodacrylic.com/pages/techspecs.asp
The full name for Modacrylic fibers is:
Acrylonitrile-Vinylidene Chlorine Copolymer containing Metal Oxide FR
Synergist. I can’t find exactly which Metal Oxide FRC they use but in
general from what I have read, most Metal Oxide FRC’s are quite toxic to
humans. The above web link also links to their Material Safety Data
Sheet (MSDS) on Modacrylics. If you read this document it tells you
Modacrylics are only “Slightly Toxic” for skin contact, and
“Avoid eye contact. … Minimize skin contamination … Avoid breathing
dust. … Use approved respiratory protection equipment … Provide natural
or mechanical ventilation to minimize exposure. … Handle in accordance
with good industrial hygiene and safety practices. These practices
include avoiding unnecessary exposure and removal of material from eyes,
skin and clothing. …
ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION: Solutia has not conducted environmental toxicity
or biodegradation studies with this material. …
TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: Solutia has not conducted toxicity
studies on this material and no toxicological information was obtained
in a reasonably extensive search of the available scientific
literature.”
I strongly disagree with ISPA saying there are no
flame retardant chemicals in fire barrier systems for mattresses. I have
been unable to find any fire barrier solution to meet this standard that
does not require the use of FRC’s. But all of the above may be
meaningless because Boric Acid fire barrier solutions are by far the
most cost effective and will be the most used in mattresses most people
sleep on.
In defense of Mattress Manufacturers who are aware
of some risks of Boric Acid, and are trying to find a chemical free
system, it’s not easy. Fire barrier suppliers try to be secretive about
their systems and tell us there are no chemicals, but inherently flame
resistant fibers. There are not that many types of fibers out there.
When you ask for a MSDS they somehow always forget to send it. When you
push hard enough, you find out it is a Modacrylic system.
ISPA’s web page goes on to tell us: “Boric acid
treated cotton has been widely used by the U.S. mattress industry for
more than 30 years with no known human toxicity or environmental
problems associated with this application. In fact, boric acid solutions
are often used as an eye wash.” While there are some safe uses for Boric
Acid including eye wash, “In the past, boric acid was used as a topical
treatment for infants with diaper rash. However, even in diluted (3%)
form it caused significant toxicity and two deaths.” Our exposure in
mattresses will be close and chronic.
In my own 30-years experience I have never known
boric acid to be used in innerspring mattresses and double-checked with
some people. I spoke with a regional manufacturer who has been making
mattresses since 1958, almost fifty years. He confirmed he has never
used or seen boric acid used in cotton batting in mattresses because it
is not needed. He explained that mattresses easily pass the cigarette
ignition test when foam or polyester is quilted into the ticking and
there is no need to pay the 7% extra cost to have boric acid added to
the cotton batting. I then spoke with a cotton batting manufacturer and
was told that none of his innerspring mattress manufacturer customers
bought boric acid treated cotton batting. They only bought untreated
batting for the above reasons, they did not want to pay the extra costs
and it was not necessary to meet existing federal standards for
cigarette ignition. Thus I dispute ISPA’s statement that Boric Acid has
been ‘widely’ used in mattresses.
From reading ISPA’s web site I can’t find any
research on the safety of flame retardant chemicals they will use. I
don’t think there is any. Like the Modacrylic fiber manufacturers
admission – there is no toxicological research. Yet we charge ahead and
put FRC’s in our mattresses that we know nothing about how they will
affect people.
The only thing I can find that speaks to the safely
of these chemicals is the National Cotton Batting Institute website. On
a NCBI web page,
http://www.natbat.com/docs/boron.htm , someone who is not even a
doctor admits the safety question of Boric Acid exposure comes up every
year. He tells us Boric Acid has been used since the days of the ancient
Greeks as a food preservative. This was true until the early 1900’s when
it was largely banned as a food preservative because we discovered the
true dangers and people were getting sick and dying from Boric Acid.
Then he says: “The Environmental Protection
Agency has established that boric acid is benign.” I don’t know where he
gets this statement because my research shows the EPA warns Boric Acid
is a Reproductive and Developmental Toxin. The EPA warns not to have
skin contact: “use of the substance without dermal protection
may result in serious chronic and developmental effects.” “EPA is
concerned that toxicity to aquatic organisms may occur at a
concentration as low as 300 ppb” (Please see previous links to EPA
statements.) Then they cite a single measure of toxicology, on a single
animal species, by stating it takes huge oral quantities, 2660
milligrams of dose per kilogram of body weight, to kill half the rats in
a study and compares Boric Acid to Table Salt. There are many more facts
they leave out. Inhalation appears to be a much greater risk than oral
and rats have died from inhaling only 28mg/m3/4h. He does not tell us
that our government reports human deaths from “2-3 g in infants, 5-6 g
in children and 15-20 g in adults (Locatelli et al. 1987; Wong et al.
1964).” He does admit Boric Acid is toxic: “So
are borates toxic? Certainly, and so is virtually every and anything
else you come in contact with.” I guess this some how makes it OK that
we are exposed to a lot of toxins, and also sleeping in them won’t
matter? He then goes on to say we don’t know of killing anyone
yet by using it in mattresses. It is not just a matter of dying. Boric
Acid also makes you sick from much lower quantities. Recent numerous
studies on various animal species and humans with various types of
exposures and durations show Boric Acid can do serious damage with no
external symptoms. It appears they have not considered or addressed the
huge warnings our modern science gives us.
 Until
now, under the new law, Boric Acid in mattresses has been very limited.
It has been used in some prison mattresses and that would be a very good
place for researchers to look for health or sterilization affects.
“Central nervous system injury, gastrointestinal effects, and skin
damage are characteristic manifestations of boron toxicity in humans.
Liver and kidneys in humans and testes in animals can also be affected.
Various clinical and biochemical changes associated with these effects
may be measured to detect the extent of exposure to boron. There is no
single biological indicator of boron exposure” It can be difficult to
detect Boron poisoning. Are there unreported cases of Boron poisoning
from mattresses? I read a report of one Asthma sufferer who claimed
sleeping on a Boric Acid mattress made it difficult for him to breathe.
He tried alternating sleeping on the Boric Acid and a ‘clean’ mattress
for several days each for several trials. He finally determined the
Boric Acid mattress was causing his problem. What will happen to these
people when they can’t get a ‘clean’ mattress? Our healthy adult bodies
can tolerate and get rid of a certain amount of poison. How about
impaired people? How about children? We know “Neonatal children are
unusually susceptible to boron exposure.” How about the unborn?
“Exposure to pesticides, especially during early pregnancy,
had a clear positive association with stillbirths regardless
of cause of death.”
http://oem.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/54/7/511 We now
experience some 30,000 infant deaths in the US each year. Are any of
these related to Boric Acid? A piece of cotton batting that contains 10%
Boric Acid by weight can contain up to or more than a pound of poison in
the surface of your mattress. Then as you often lie on your mattress
with your mouth and nostrils directly on the surface perhaps your drool
causes you to ingest these chemicals. But certainly you are breathing
these chemicals and absorbing them through your skin. The NCBI goes on
to tell us Boric Acid will kill organisms in our mattresses and that it
is also an insecticide. Should this tell us something? Yes it’s Poison.
How much poison are you willing to tolerate in your mattress?
The science of toxicology uses high dose short-term
exposure on various animals to predict the affect of low dose long-term
exposure on humans. Chemical exposure risk greatly increases with, close
contact, and length of exposure. For an infant born today this exposure
on a mattress will be eight or more hours per day, every day, for the
next seventy years or more.
Boric Acid, a chemical made from the reaction of
Sulfuric Acid and Borax, should not be confused with Boron salts that
occur in nature. Boric acid is the raw stuff. It occurs in nature in
only one place in the world -- A steam vent in Italy where Sulfuric Acid
mixes with Borax. (Microsoft Encarta)
This mattress cutaway shows how Boric Acid is used
in mattresses. The layer at the surface is fluffy cotton batting treated
with Boric Acid. The layer next to the springs is compressed cotton
batting treated with Boric Acid. The law label tells us the mattress
contains: 47% Urethane Foam, 39% Treated Cotton, 13% Polyester
Fiber. By weighing the cotton batting in the mattress and assuming 10%
Boric Acid by weight,Boric Acid treated mattresses would contain the
following amount of Boric Acid in each mattress: (3)
|
Size |
Pounds |
Grams |
Ounces |
|
King |
1.8 |
824 |
29 |
|
Queen |
1.5 |
659 |
23 |
|
Full |
1.2 |
553 |
20 |
|
Twin |
0.9 |
386 |
14 |
Here is how Boric Acid is applied to cotton
batting: “Generally applied in the mixing
machine prior to garnetting, boric acid is introduced to the cotton
fibers along with a small amount of oil and chemical surfactant. To
further achieve even distribution and adherence to the fibers, the boric
acid is ground to a very fine consistency prior to application. …
Applied as a white powder, boric acid is inorganic and is odorless.” (NCBI)
Thus you can see Boric Acid is not chemically bound and exists as loose
dust in the surface of our mattresses. As the mattress gets older and
oils dry out even more Boric Acid will kick up into our faces with every
body movement for us to breathe and absorb.
It would be roughly
equivalent to take a pound or two of Boric Acid Roach Killer, sprinkle
it on the surface of our existing mattress, and rub it in. This might
make it flameproof. Does this make you feel safer?
In the 4-23-04 Market daily issue of Furniture
Today an article reported that the CPSC informed California that there
was an existing federal flammability standard and that California’s new
CAB-603 law is thus preempted and unenforceable. It also reported that
California had decided not to appeal this ruling and ask for an
exemption to enforce state law over federal law. Thus this new law would
simply die and go away, at least in California. Then the article quoted
Dick Doyle, President of ISPA as saying California should go through the
appeal process and enforce this law in California. Again I was shocked.
Why does an industry association want more government regulation? This
law could just die and might also die in the CPSC. Then, the next day
another article reports California is going to ignore the ruling and
enforce the new law as scheduled.
Federal law supersedes State Law. A California
retailer or group could file an injunction to stop enforcement of this
law. It might be simple and not very costly. We only need to argue one
point of law. Federal law supersedes State Law and this law is therefore
unenforceable. The lawyer might want to throw in the health risks the
legislators did not consider in passing this law. But we only need to
win on a single point of law. While this would stop it in California, we
will still need to convince the CPSC to not enact this law nationwide.
As our Mothers once told us: “Don’t play with fire,
it can burn you in unexpected ways.” We have been repeatedly burned by
FRC’s that we latter find harms us. Have we harmed more people than we
have saved? When are we going to develop some common sense?
Now we are going to sleep in these chemicals!
Even people who have no fear of these chemicals
might oppose this law because it is more government regulation that will
cost consumers an extra $50 to $200 for every new mattress purchased --
A new net tax on every consumer who can afford to buy a new mattress.
Most of the scientific discoveries I have reported
about the dangers of Boric Acid were found after 1970. We need to
consider our newer science before we force every American to sleep in
Boric Acid or other chemicals that are not proven safe for this use.
Many people in the mattress industry share the
concern that Boric Acid has huge risks and are choosing other more
expensive chemical systems to fireproof their mattresses. Unfortunately
many others do not share this opinion and are using Boric Acid systems.
Are Modacrylic systems better? While we know a lot about the risks of
Boric Acid we know very little about Modacrylics – they have never been
tested for toxicology. They do admit Modacrylics are “Slightly Toxic”
for skin contact and we should not breathe them. In another 30-years we
might learn as much about Modacrylics, as we have learned about Boric
Acid in the last 30-years. By then we will have tested our entire
population, and it might be too late. In your own mind, is it even
remotely possible that we might sterilize or harm much of our
population? How about impaired or sensitive people, or Children,
infants, and the unborn? Is our best choice simply to stop this law?
Respected Doctors in this field oppose this law.
Do you want your family, your children, and your
grandchildren to sleep in these known toxic chemicals? The CPSC will
soon force all of us to do so.
Links to References:
(1) “Government regulations and industry
standards obligate manufactures to add flame-retardants to a wide range
of products used everyday. Many of these flame retardant products are
toxic... The benefits of protecting people from death and property from
damage resulting from fires must be weighed against exposure to
chemicals that are potentially harmful to human health and the
environment.”
http://www.marketresearch.com/map/prod/924720.html
“Demand for flame retardants in the US is projected to increase
nearly four percent per year to 1.2 billion pounds in 2005... This
assessment of the one billion pound US market for flame retardants...”
http://www.marketresearch.com/map/prod/738639.html
(2) USA Today: “Though the USA has the
world's toughest flame retardancy standards, 3,000 people die in fires
each year. The Chemical Manufacturers Association estimates the number
would be up to 960 higher without such flame retardants” http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-09-22-breast-milk_x.htm
From the Los Angeles Times: “… Many say they are dismayed that
industry and society have forgotten lessons learned from the toxic
legacies of the past. … 'Didn't we learn from PCBs?'"
http://eces.org/articles/000093.php
“… says it's a never-ending battle. Grey says she wants to know how
the products get to market in the first place. … "It's only after
they've been using them and that they've exposed humans to these hazards
that they say it is dangerous," she says. Both Grey and Dewailly say
they wonder why such effects aren't discovered during pre-testing before
companies market the products.”
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/09/17/pollutants030917
We are Americans, we can fight this!
Get a bottle of Boric Acid and a MSDS, show it to
your customers, and ask them to sign a petition to stop this law.
Contact your local media and tell them what you are doing to protect
public health. You may get free publicity, which tells people to
visit your store to sign this petition.
Look at the Law Label on the mattress, if it says
it contains “Treated Cotton” it is probably treated with Boric Acid. But
you have a legal right to demand a MSDS that will likely tell you for
sure.
In your petition remember we are fighting all known
toxic, or any chemicals not yet proven safe for this use, not just Boric
Acid. A simple statement like this would do: “Petition, I oppose any and
all Flame Retardant Chemicals in Mattresses.” Forward signed petitions
to me and I will forward them in mass to the CPSC and related
legislators, or send them directly to the CPSC at the address below.
Someone should form a California group to file an
injunction to stop the law there. Or perhaps one company might do it
alone.
Ethically you want the products you sell to be
safe. If we later find harm from these chemicals retailers are likely to
be sued as well. Please call me or one of my staff with questions.
People in some States have fought for, and won the right to ride their
motorcycles without a helmet. With your help we can win the right to
keep our mattresses clean and pure.
Boric Acid pesticides are often labeled as
containing Orthoboric Acid, it is exactly the same, see synonyms on the
MSDS.
You can get MSDS reports and Bottles of Boric Acid
at the following links:
Modacrylic Fiber spec sheet:
http://www.sefmodacrylic.com/pages/techspecs.asp MSDS: http://domino.solutia.com/solutia/...English.pdf
Boric Acid MSDS:
http://www.rosemill.com/html/msds/chem_boric_acid_msds.pdf
|
