Electronics Standards
Introduction
Problem: The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) sets worldwide standards for electronics that adequately protect against ignition inside electronic devices. Flame retardant producers have led a long series of efforts for an external “candle standard” that would be met by the use of flame retardants chemicals in the outer casings of computers, TVs, and other electronics. These proposals were rejected in 2008, 2012, 2013 and 2014 due to their lack of valid fire safety rationale and the potential for serious health and ecological harm from the chemicals used to meet them. Adding flame retardants to plastic enclosures would also make the recycling of electronics more difficult or, in many cases, impossible. However, flame retardant industry efforts for such harmful and ineffective standards continue in 2015.
- Current rigorous standards governing the safe functioning of electronic equipment are effective and sufficient.
- Based on statistics from the National Fire Protection Association, a new standard protecting electronics against candle fires is not warranted.
- A “candle standard” amendment would bring hundreds of millions of pounds of potentially toxic flame retardant chemicals into consumers’ homes each year.
Experts weigh in
- 2015 updated white paper: The case against candle resistant electronics
- 2015 updated white paper: The case against candle resistant TVs
- 2014 Environment & Health feature article: Deconstructing the data behind arguments in favor of the candle standard
- 2009 Cover story from Conformity magazine: The defeat of the candle flame ignition requirement
- Scientists’ rebuttal to chemical industry’s argument
- International Association of Fire Fighters opposes retardants in TV cases
- Australian Fire Brigade opposes retardants due to cancer risk
- Scientists and physicians: letter opposing retardants in TVs
- Center for Environmental Health and other NGOs: letter opposing retardants in TVs
- Canadian Environmental Law Association position letter
White paper: The case against candle resistant electronics
Our white paper describes, with references, why “candle standard” amendments for electronics do not provide significant fire safety benefits but do present serious health and environmental risks.
This white paper has been regularly updated. You can read the original 2008 version here.
Flame retardants added to electronics cases: The path from product to people
Main Findings:
Fire Safety
- Current rigorous standards governing the safe functioning of electronic equipment are effective and sufficient.
- Based on statistics from the National Fire Protection Association, a new standard protecting electronics against candle fires is not warranted.
- A “candle standard” amendment would bring hundreds of millions of pounds of potentially toxic flame retardant chemicals into consumers’ homes each year.
- Many flame retardants used to meet “candle” standards are known to harm human health and ecosystems. They also hinder electronics recycling.
Flame Retardant Chemicals
- Flame retardants used in electronics cases are found in house dust and human fat, blood, and breast milk worldwide.
- The chemicals that have been studied disrupt hormones, lower fertility, and cause abnormal development of the brain and reproductive system in animals.
- The addition of flame retardant chemicals to plastic cases makes responsible electronics recycling more difficult.
- If plastic cases are burned, halogenated flame retardants form toxic and cancer-causing by-products, which are especially of concern for firefighters, who suffer from high cancer rates.
White paper: The case against candle resistant TVs
Most of the “candle standard” amendments have targeted TVs. Our white paper (latest version from January 2014) explains in detail the problems with such standards.
Arguments for flame retarded TVs come from a small study of CRT TVs in a suburb of Stockholm, Sweden. This study has numerous flaws, as discussed in Dr. Tom Muir’s 2014 paper.
Widespread agreement in opposition to new candle standard
Fire Service Professionals
“We have reviewed the fire data cited in support of [the proposed amendment] and do not find a valid fire-safety rationale for this standard…While the fire risk is very low, the health risk, especially for fire fighters, is very high.”
–U.S. fire fighters and burn prevention organizations
Scientists and Health Care Professionals
“These toxic flame retardants cross the placenta, meaning babies are born with these chemicals in their bodies and are further exposed because the chemicals accumulate in breast milk.”
–35 physicians and scientists
Non-profit and Public Interest
“…well-known risk of these toxic substances migrating from TVs into the indoor environment where they partition to house dust and create an indoor health hazard.”
–Canadian Environmental Law Association
Resources
- The Guardian, Flame retardants may be coming off of furniture, but they’re still in your TV sets.
- The case against candle resistant electronics (revised version of a 2008 white paper)
- The case against candle resistant TVs (a 2015 update)
- Muir (2014). The TV fire and flame retardant controversy: deconstructing the data
- International Chemical Secretariat position paper:
- “[The proposed amendment] is unnecessary and it is irrelevant for fire safety
to introduce such criteria which in fact will cause much more damage to human health and the environment than the few fires that possibly could be prevented.”
- Letter from firefighter and burn prevention organizations:
- “There is no current evidence that a significant number of fires in TVs and other electronics are caused by external candle ignition.”
- See also “experts weigh in” sidebar at top of page
