Toxic Mattresses

[phoenix]

Hi OYEB,

Thanks for sharing the link. It’s amazing to me how sensitive some people can be (there have been a few posters on the forum as well with MCS or multiple chemical sensitivity) and they certainly do face a daily challenge in avoiding the chemicals that are so endemic in modern society.

I should also mention though that while it has some good information, It also contains some “myth” or inaccuracies that are often repeated across many websites but that aren’t supported by any research of facts that I’m aware of. If everyone needed to follow her guidelines or what she believes is “best” then everyone would face the same daily challenge that she was when it wasn’t necessary or even desirable. This is not uncommon in the organic community in my experience when the desire for a “natural” or even “organic” lifestyle to a greater degree than most people would be comfortable with is often based on beliefs that don’t fully stand up to scrutiny or don’t “weigh in” any evidence that goes against what they believe.

A few examples of these kinds of statements in the blog includes …

The new flameproof mattress regulation (July-07 National, Jan-05 California) requires all mattresses now withstand a severe open flame test. This requires known acutely toxic and cancer causing chemicals in or next to the surface of all mattresses. It is proven we will absorb these chemicals every night.

This is actually (and factually) not correct. 1633 only requires that a mattress pass the test before it can be sold (or a prescription which can allow a manufacturer to make a mattress without them) and there are several methods of passing the test that don’t use toxic chemicals … even though some manufacturers do use them.

Organic mattresses often claim to use wool to pass the open flame test. Wool burns at 600 degrees and the open flame test is 2,000 degrees for over a minute. It is scientifically impossible for untreated wool to pass this test. Since there are no labeling requirements for these chemicals even the wool and other fire barrier suppliers often tell mattress manufacturers their systems contain no chemicals. Unfortunately, many mattress manufactures and consumers want to believe this.

This is also not accurate and there are many manufacturers who successfully pass the test using wool that doesn’t have any chemicals added. The fact that wool can burn has nothing to do with this (and this myth seems to originate on the Strobel site here which makes the same claim and then uses a completely misleading video using a single strand of knitting wool to justify it). The fact is that the fire barrier may burn but the fire code is meant to prevent flashover which mean that the flame needs to be self extinguishing and not grow to consume the whole mattress and wool without any chemicals added can do very well with this if it is done correctly. You can see an article here by someone who I greatly respect and is an expert at passing the fire retardant tests about how untreated densified wool can be used to pass 1633. Post #2 here also includes links to two videos that show the actual testing for two mattresses that use only wool as the fire retardant method.

Silicon (Silica Glass, a known respiratory hazard and carcinogen)

This is another myth or at best a partial truth and it doesn’t take into account that there are different types of Silica besides “silica glass” (crystalline) and they don’t pose a respiratory hazard at all in the form they are used in an inherent viscose/silica fire barrier. As the link shows, Crystalline Silica is the form that can cause Silicosis and is both toxic and fibrogenic. Amorphous silica is toxic but not fibrogenic, and silica gel or silicic acid (the form in inherent fire barrier fabrics) is neither toxic or fibrogenic. You can read more about this in post #2 here but I would consider a viscose/silica fire barrier to be a very safe material.

Boric Acid (yes, the Roach Killer)

This also doesn’t take into account that Boric acid/Boron/Borate doesn’t kill roaches because of its toxicity but because it dehydrates them (similar to how salt would). The LD50 level of Boron#10 for example (@3765 mg/kg) is similar to the LD50 level of table salt (with ingestion which is the most toxic type of exposure) in terms of its toxicity so again the specifics can make the difference.

There are now no mattresses that are free of toxic chemicals.

This is also completely untrue.

I personally think that any information that is weighted too much in any direction or that misrepresents more complex issues with oversimplifications or misleading statements tends to miss the point that there are a wide range of different people with different needs, preferences, and priorities that may be just as valid to them as the rather unique needs and preferences of the person who wrote the article. In many cases they want to believe so much in what they are saying and that it always applies to others besides themselves that they build “pieces of the truth” and make more absolute statements that are presented as “all of the truth” instead of just a piece of it. This doesn’t do anyone any favors IMO … least of all the credibility of the rest of what they are saying which does have much more basis in fact.

This doesn’t mean that fire retardant chemicals don’t cause harm (they certainly can) or that there isn’t more to the story (you can see a great Chicago Tribune multi-part article here that exposes some of the myths and real motivations behind the 1633 fire retardant regulations) but only that partial truths that are promoted by either side of the argument can do more harm than good.

These kinds of articles can be really valuable for those who are in a similar more extreme position and don’t know where to turn any more to find answers but in most cases this only involves a very small percentage of the population.

There is also more information about fire barriers in post #4 here and in post #4 here that would also be well worth reading.

Phoenix