Washington Bans Chemicals; Industry Freaks

Frosty Piss writes "The governor of Washington is scheduled to sign legislation today to ban flame retardants called PBDEs in furniture, televisions, and computers in the state. This is despite the more than $220,000 the chemical industry has spent since 2005 to defeat the legislation. At a time when the federal government is largely ineffectual in regulating long-used but potentially dangerous industrial chemicals, the Washington ban could be the beginning of the end for PBDEs across the nation. 'The industry that makes deca and PBDEs is freaking out because they lost so severely in Washington state and other states will follow,' said a spokeswoman for the Washington Toxics Coalition. 'It really is a message from Washington state and policymakers that we won't accept chemicals that build up in our bodies and our children.'"

Comments

As opposed to burning to death?

[Anonymous Coward]

This might be the first recorded Think-Of-The-Children infinite loop:

"If you get rid of the flame retardant, people will die in fires. Think of the children!"
"No, YOU think of the children, who are filling up with toxic chemicals!"
"YOU think of the children, who are currently on fire!"
(and so forth)

Meanwhile, the children grow up and move to Vancouver.

Re:As opposed to burning to death?

[Red Flayer]

"YOU think of the children, who are currently on fire!"
(and so forth)

Meanwhile, the children grow up and move to Vancouver.

One would think that being on fire might retard the maturation process in children, never mind Canadian Immigration being ok with immigrants ablaze.

Re:As opposed to burning to death?

[sammy baby]

Canada, aka Canuckia, is getting a lot stricter with its immigration policies. These days I'm pretty sure that showing up at a checkpoint while on fire will get you detained for a fairly lengthy interview with Canuckian authorities.

Re:As opposed to burning to death?

[onkelonkel]

As a Canadian I can assure you that our ever-vigilant Customs and Immigration officers would ask several sternly worded questions before they admitted such a person.

Money talks?

[fahrbot-bot]

This is despite the more than $220,000 the chemical industry has spent since 2005 to defeat the legislation.

Wow a whole $200k over two years; they must really be serious!

Re:Money talks?

[pilgrim23]

that much money bought them 3 lobbysts and a magic marker, but they had to SHARE the magic marker.
    In other news the Washington state legislature passed a bill that outlawed the most common casue of fire: Oxygen. The bill mandates that industry provide an alternative to this dangerous gas within the next 4 years. In a move seen by many as a landmark case Washington may well become the first Oxygen free state in the nation.

Re:Money talks?

[Pope]

1 US dollar = 1.6 metric dollars.

Re:But if the children

[noidentity]

Yeah, as long as it's not too many. Otherwise we'd have to ban anything that's not metal/glass/ceramic.... oh, wait, those could cut someone, so we better ban them too. The question is not whether it's dangerous, it's how to balance the inherent tradeoffs between the various dangers.

Re:So ... ?

[beckerist]

You'd be surprised at the current effectiveness of Vista's Firewall. Talk about retardant!

Re:Another step towards a States Rights battle?

[mi]

I would not be surprised either — promises to "cut the red tape" and reduce the regulatory burden is part of the reason I vote Republican...

Re:Washington Toxics Coalition

[UbuntuDupe]

It's not as bad as the Washington Biological Survey, abbreviated as "Wash. Biol. Surv.", which people may mistake as animal cooking instructions.

There is actually a law to prevent this.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't just show up at the border waving a firearm.