Seattlest Pix 09Nov20
Friendly Folk-Pop for the Kids: Hey Marseilles at Vera This Saturday
Seattlest Pix 09Nov21
Excavator Rampage in Stanwood
Can't Miss It: Weekend Edition Nov 20-22
This week the Washington State Senate is deciding whether to make Washington to the first state in the nation to ban the fire retardant deca-BDE [ESHB 1024]. (The House, where Jamie Pedersen was a sponsor, passed the bill this February.)
[UPDATE: Rep. Ross Hunter writes to point out that he's the bill's primary sponsor -- there are over 50 "We're with ya, Ross" sponsors, including Pedersen and some guy named Upthegrove. In Ross's honor, we're not going to belittle the Eastside very much today.]
If you haven't already been exposed, the Seattle P-I has a full work-up on what the deal is with PBDEs. The Seattle Times has...well, it smells like senior citizen spit-up.
In short, PBDEs are likely to be what are called persistent toxins: they're accumulating in the environment throughout the world and are being ingested by all animal life (that includes us). What's most disturbing is that PBDE levels are rising in breast milk, and indications are that low levels of PBDEs cause neurological and developmental deficits. (Nothing to see here, move along.) Because PBDEs do burn, and produce a form of the carcinogen dioxin, even firefighter groups -- the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters and the Washington Fire Chiefs -- support the ban.
In editorializing against the ban, the Seattle Times says no as many ways as possible while expressing no clear understanding of the problem: "The case for doing something decisive has not been made." (And don't look at the Seattle Times to make it. They're just a news source.)
For context, two other forms of PBDE (penta and octa) were taken off the market years ago. While Washington State could be the first to ban deca, it's more of a race: Maryland, Michigan, California, Maine...that's just a quick Google search on state bans. But let's see what the keen minds at the Times have to say.
"By reducing the fire danger from petroleum-based plastics, deca-BDE saves lives." (It's true: fire retardants help save lives. That's why the phased-in ban encourages the development and use of safer alternatives like melamine.)
"The case against deca-BDE rests on its detection in humans in tiny amounts." (No, the case against deca rests on finding out it's a persistent toxin that has unimaginable disruptive potential on life across the globe when we can no longer do anything about it. "The global demand for PBDEs was 200,000 tons in 2003 alone," says the P-I. And the Washington Toxics Coalition reports: "Studies in wildlife have shown that PBDE levels are rising at alarming rates, doubling every one to five years. In the Columbia River system, levels of PBDEs in fish doubled in a mere 1.6 years.")
After saying the case hasn't been made, the Times seems to argue the ban doesn't go far enough, saying it "does not flatly ban deca-BDE, except in mattresses. It would ban it in computer monitors and TVs, but only if a better chemical can be certified by the Department of Ecology." (So, the Times doesn't believe that governmental regulation can direct market responses? Or is it about being fair to consumer products?)
But if that doesn't do it, how about: "Blatant discrimination against foreign products probably violates the World Trade Organization treaty." (Yes, that's not a topic worthy of discussion -- the WTO probably should trump member nations' ability to enact health-based regulations. Here the Times stands firmly in line with Seattle's worldwide, pro-WTO fame.)
"In any case, the regulation of products in international commerce falls to Congress, not the states." (Not with a bang, but with a whimper, the Times hands off state sovereignty and bolts for the door.)
We note that we never hear why the Times is so strenuously against the ban -- deca isn't banned if safer alternatives aren't found. As it stands, we can only assume that the Seattle Times is stoutly 1) for introducing non-biodegradable substances of probable toxicity into our water and food supply, 2) for absolute, no-exceptions bans, with no buffer to allow industry to respond, and 3) against beginning change with state regulation, directives can only come from federal level or the WTO.
Got it. We're tempted to call and subscribe just for the satisfaction of being able to cancel.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I'm sure Rep. Petersen is a sponsor, but when you refer to a bill you usually point out its prime sponsor, and that's ME.
Despite my desperate pandering for public notice, thanks for a funny analysis of the two paper's coverage. This is not typically a funny issue, and you've succeeded where I've failed at humor for years.
Sorry, Ross. I added in Jamie for local (43rd, bringin' it!) color. You're the 48th -- but since you stopped in we'll extend the Seattlest umbrella to the Eastside. Props where props is due! As for the humor, thanks, but I owe it all to the Seattle Times for the set-up. (After thinking it over, I've decided it must be some kinda sneaky reverse psychology on their part.)