💾 Archived View for stack.tilde.cafe › gemlog › 2023-07-06.mattress.gmi captured on 2024-06-16 at 12:23:13. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-09-08)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
gemini://taoetc.org/re_fire_retardants_are_not_a_legal_requirement/index.gmi
I think you glanced at the first table entry and rushed an answer!
The provided link clearly states that California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Washington D.C. passed strict limits or _entirely prohibit_ chemical retardants, while EPA rulings go a long way, federally:
https://www.ul.com/news/epa-issues-restrictions-use-5-flame-retardants
There is also weird 'non-binding' guidance to the use of retardants, such as:
https://www.cpsc.gov/Business--Manufacturing/Business-Education/Business-Guidance/flame-retardants
As usual, the wording of such thing, as well as the authority of publishers is questionable and incomprehensible.
Urethane foam, most commonly used, simply requires some kind of treatment as it is highly inflammable. Synthetic latex, likewise, burns hot. Most websites about mattresses simply repeat each other about "government requirements for flame retardants".
The yardstick is passing a flame test, which is most easily accomplished with chemicals. Wool works -- obviously not for you (my veganism falls slightly short of that -- respect!). Fiberglass is completely inert as far as I can tell, but seems like a bad idea (prohibited in California). Cotton is an option. I've heard of kevlar, graphite and other substances in use.
The geometry of the Latex foam pads is also important in a fire test: many simply have through-holes for ventilation, and these provide airways that accelerate the fire.
It is entirely too hard and expensive to find a healthy mattress.